Piracy isn’t stealing, primarily since the victim still has the pirated goods and can continue to sell them, but doubly so since people who pay for those goods legitimately don’t own them and are at the complete mercy of the company to continue to access them. History is rife with examples of companies removing access to digitally paid for goods with no explanation or recourse. Look at the recent PlayStation fiasco, or Warner Brothers cancelling Infinity Train and Inside Job (and pulling the completed seasons from streaming services) because they wanted a tax write-off.
Questioning the validity of science and half the global population’s worth of empirical evidence and endangering oneself and others purely to be contrarian, and, more importantly, continuing to support someone who calls immigrants vermin and quotes Mussolini in his campaign speeches goes beyond “having a different opinion”
Warner Brothers cancelling Infinity Train and Inside Job (and pulling the completed seasons from streaming services) because they wanted a tax write-off.
WHAT THE FUCK, as if the cancellation wasn’t bad enough, I only now learned they removed Infinity Train from streaming. Fuck you WB
Questioning the validity of science is precisely how science is done. You form a hypothesis and design an experiment to either prove or disprove it. Reading papers and just believing everything they say, taking for granted that the people who wrote them carried out the experiment(s) exactly as described, didn’t fudge any numbers, and declared all their conflicts of interest and sources of funding accurately and unbiased, isn’t.
Making your own discussion platform because you don’t like the other ones that are available is no worse of an offense than going to a different room. Lemmy literally IS such a place that was created because people didn’t like what was happening on reddit. Basically, what you’re saying is that YOU deserve a safe space because your opinions are valid and correct, and other people don’t because theirs are wrong. I don’t know, man… sounds kinda fascist if you ask me.
Questioning the validity of science is precisely how science is done
These are 2 different statements, pertaining to 2 different actions.
Both the statements are true… err… alright, maybe not the first one as much.
You can question the concept of science (which, in a way, boils down to “Question everything”) and still be a scientist.
Questioning the validity of (other’s and your own previous) science is a part of the concept of science.
Questioning the concept of science is more of a philosophical matter and would be valid in a quest for better concepts.
The above two statements are not actually denying each other.
Hate to break it to you sunshine, going “nuh uh” at any science you don’t like cause it clashes with your world view you gained from religion or your Bigoted daddy?
Thanks for your opinion but I didn’t deny any science, all I said is I don’t fault people for questioning it.
Also, your insults are unnecessary and childish and don’t really help your argument. I’ve argued my case respectfully and without name-calling, and I suggest you do the same.
“I don’t have an argument so I’m going to deflect by saying I’M not a science denier I just spend my time defending science deniers. Also anyone who disagrees with me is a childish meanie 😭”
Skepticism is the literal precursor to the acientific method, and that’s where you’re stopping.
Good, so we agree on something then. No skepticism = no science.
You’re basically saying, “Gravity isn’t real because I don’t see proof.”
Strawman. I didn’t say that.
A real scientist would drop an apple, a feather, a bowling ball, and verify it.
Yes, and some of the people in the “anti-science” community ARE doing that. And the rest of them are conducting a self-experiment on what happens if you ignore all the science…
Questioning the conclusions that scientists before you have reached is something that is good to do if you have the tools to do your own primary research and publish your own study. If you don’t have the tools to do your own study, looking at the hundreds of papers out there in peer-reviewed journals (peer-reviewed meaning multiple independent teams of scientists did the experiment as described and got the same result the authors did) all showing the same results are about as good as you can get. If you don’t trust Big Science, just look around you. Take for example the question of whether the vaccine is safe to get. A common argument I heard was that people didn’t want to be guinea pigs, which would have been fair were it not for the fact that half the global population had already gotten it and less than 1% had any ill effects. As for whether it protects people from the virus, one need look no further than the endless stories from healthcare workers about the people they kept alive. All of the life threatening cases were from people who hadn’t gotten the shot.
Acting as though the conclusions scientists before you have reached are false because a podcast you follow said they were, without supplying any data to suggest such a thing, is a wholesale rejection of the scientific method.
The person you replied to never said anything about Parler itself, let alone whether platforms that don’t follow the popular consensus should exist. That is unambiguously good. What they said was that the people who run Parler are fascist bootlickers, which, now that Trump has said in as many words that he plans to be a dictator, is true of anyone who still supports him.
Can’t help but notice your response didn’t address the piracy issue. Can I assume we agree on that?
The problem with “big science” is that the ordinary person has no conceivable means by which to verify any of their claims, they have to be taken by faith. And there have been many, many cases in the past where this turned out to be a mistake. Unlike what some people will have you believe, science is never really settled, things that used to be the common consensus have turned out to be wrong many times in the past. What makes you think that nowadays, we’re somehow past all that, just because our methods are more precise than our forefathers’? Why should the knowledge we have now be the end-all-be-all when not too long ago, doctors used to prescribe cigarettes as a treatment for asthma?
Okay, but that’s just an opinion, not scientific consensus. People on Parler think the Fediverse is full of pedophiles, does that give them the right to shut it down?
I don’t care about stealing as long as there’s a legitimate need and it’s not just out of laziness or greed. I used to pirate my games and software when I was too broke to afford them, but once I started earning more money, I gave up on that and started paying for them, even though pirating would have sometimes been easier or more convenient.
So you disagree with the scientific consensus. Cool. Where’s your data to the contrary? When are you publishing your study? Or are you just here to cast doubt on the validity of science as a concept, and use that as a basis to believe whatever a talking head says?
Parler advertises itself towards Trump supporters. I think it’s safe to say there are Trump supporters there. Also, once again, neither I nor the OP said anything at all about Parler itself, only its founders. Where did you get the idea that I think it should be shut down?
I already told you why piracy isn’t stealing. Do you have a response to that?
It’s becoming increasingly obvious you’re not arguing in good faith. I’m going to bed now. You’ll have to pretend to argue with someone else for a while.
Strawman. I didn’t say I disagree with it, I just listed some valid reasons for why people might.
Yeah, okay, I get it, you just hate them. That’s allowed of course. I’m just pointing out that hating them for hating you makes you no better than them.
Of course it’s stealing, your justifications don’t change that. Like I said, I don’t think it’s objectionable when it’s done for legitimate reasons (like if the company removes access for something you already bought and paid for), and forgivable if you’re too broke to afford it, but it’s stealing nevertheless.
Do we agree, then, that science should be the foremost authority in decision making, since we seem to agree that there is no better one, and that therefore your previous point was addressing nothing?
I don’t hate them because they hate me. I hate them because they are rooting for a person who calls himself a dictator, and who has a history of making credible threats against the lives and livelihoods of people I care deeply about, to take over the country in which I live. That does not make me a hypocrite.
Only if your science is comfortable with being questioned and doesn’t require banning, unpersoning, or othering people for the sake of achieving consensus.
How many of your loved ones has Trump killed or is directly responsible for? If zero, then how do you know his threats are credible? Politicians make wild promises all the time, especially during election years, and then end up not keeping them. Unless he has personally sent you a letter saying he’ll kill your mom if he gets elected, I’m gonna suggest you’re overreacting just a little bit.
I said that regardless of whether or not legitimate reasons for it may exist in some circumstances, it is still stealing. If that doesn’t look like a counterargument to you, then I don’t know what does.
It’s fine to disagree with scientific consensus. Even more so when there is not a real consensus.
Going by a recent example where in some cases, it was being mandated for everyone to be vaccinated when possible; later, it was noted that vaccinations weren’t significantly useful for people who had recently had COVID (sorry, too lazy too link. It was just a news anyway and not a res paper). But this pertains to a condition that is currently undergoing change, with new strains coming out every now and then.
An older example. Old enough to get into our school textbooks. “different tastes on different parts of the tongue”. The text used a kind of language that made readers think that given specific tastes can only be detected at those places, whereas the results from actual science were much more nuanced. Furthermore, the textbooks encouraged the students to “verify” this by trying different tasting objects on their corresponding taste locations, while not hinting them to try any of those in places other than those, which would have easily disproven the statement in the way it was written in the text.
The point here is that you are free to believe what you may, but when your actions significantly and maybe adversely affect others, you have to be careful about what others believe and whether your belief has any concrete proof. e.g. It’s fine if you don’t want to live in the same room with a vaxxer (just live in some other room, or don’t rent a multi-tenant room in the first place), but that doesn’t give you the license to harass that person or their family.
meh
It’s stealing both ways. Whether it’s legal or moral or not, is another discussion. WB stole from the customer. It was legal (they probably had it somewhere in their EULA) and probably immoral (because they knew most customers would not really read it well and those who did, would still probably give them money because they have no other option if they wanted to watch the exclusive). Pirates then stole from WB (in this case it was illegal), but the moral implications change upon perspective. Neither side of the argument is even close to ideal, but sometimes you can’t really condemn yourself for saying “It is what it is” and picking a side.
To point 1: agreed. Being right does not give anyone license to commit atrocities or force their opinions on others, because people often need a bit of time to come to accept the truth for themselves. As long as there is no danger of imminent greater harm, it’s better to be patient and let them come to terms with it on their own.
To point 3: agreed. Best to just call a spade a spade. That said, if a company promises (even if only by implication) to provide unlimited access to a product or content for a given price, and then goes back on their promise and removes that access, it could certainly also reasonably be considered theft. Doesn’t matter if it’s technically legal, if they created the appearance of ownership, they were stealing by deception.
A good comparison might be home title fraud, where thieves create the appearance of owning a home by faking documents and signatures in order to legally transfer the title of ownership and then borrow against it. When that happens, we still hold the thief responsible and not the clerk who was fooled by a fake signature.
“Stealing I can accept, but having an opinion that’s different from my own is where I draw the line.”
WHAT THE FUCK, as if the cancellation wasn’t bad enough, I only now learned they removed Infinity Train from streaming. Fuck you WB
This is one of the reasons why piracy exists.
They also cancelled the completed film Coyote vs ACME with John Cena, for a tax write off. I’m surprised it hasn’t found its way to the seven seas.
Questioning the validity of science is precisely how science is done. You form a hypothesis and design an experiment to either prove or disprove it. Reading papers and just believing everything they say, taking for granted that the people who wrote them carried out the experiment(s) exactly as described, didn’t fudge any numbers, and declared all their conflicts of interest and sources of funding accurately and unbiased, isn’t.
Making your own discussion platform because you don’t like the other ones that are available is no worse of an offense than going to a different room. Lemmy literally IS such a place that was created because people didn’t like what was happening on reddit. Basically, what you’re saying is that YOU deserve a safe space because your opinions are valid and correct, and other people don’t because theirs are wrong. I don’t know, man… sounds kinda fascist if you ask me.
Scientists do not question the concept of science. They challenge results of tests by performing new ones to replicate the proposed results.
I think maybe you need to retake some high school classes
Both the statements are true… err… alright, maybe not the first one as much. You can question the concept of science (which, in a way, boils down to “Question everything”) and still be a scientist.
Questioning the validity of (other’s and your own previous) science is a part of the concept of science.
Questioning the concept of science is more of a philosophical matter and would be valid in a quest for better concepts.
The above two statements are not actually denying each other.
No, and neither do people who question the results, which is, in fact, what most “anti-science” people do.
Skepticism is part of the scientific method. Blind faith is not.
Hate to break it to you sunshine, going “nuh uh” at any science you don’t like cause it clashes with your world view you gained from religion or your Bigoted daddy?
That’s called blind faith.
Thanks for your opinion but I didn’t deny any science, all I said is I don’t fault people for questioning it.
Also, your insults are unnecessary and childish and don’t really help your argument. I’ve argued my case respectfully and without name-calling, and I suggest you do the same.
“I don’t have an argument so I’m going to deflect by saying I’M not a science denier I just spend my time defending science deniers. Also anyone who disagrees with me is a childish meanie 😭”
The guy thinks no one got anywhere from staying in school, I got odds on them being anti vax as well
“I don’t have an argument so I’m just gonna pretend you said something you didn’t and argue with that.”
There are a number of easy classes you can take online, where you will learn about neat things like “the water cycle” and “why is the sky blue?”
Try hard enough and you might even get a gold star from the teacher
So you’re saying the cure for bootlicking is becoming a teacher’s pet? Isn’t that just bootlicking with extra steps?
Teachers pet? What is this, high school?
If you think this sort of behavior stops when you get to college, I got news for you…
I’ve been a TA, I have personally witnessed it.
Im saying the cure for being a loser is to stop sluffing class, and maybe your grades will improve
No thanks. Nobody has ever become great from attending class.
Skepticism is the literal precursor to the scientific method, and that’s where you’re stopping. There is no science at the skepticism step.
You’re basically saying, “Gravity isn’t real because I don’t see proof.”
A real scientist would drop an apple, a feather, a bowling ball, and verify it.
Good, so we agree on something then. No skepticism = no science.
Strawman. I didn’t say that.
Yes, and some of the people in the “anti-science” community ARE doing that. And the rest of them are conducting a self-experiment on what happens if you ignore all the science…
Acting as though the conclusions scientists before you have reached are false because a podcast you follow said they were, without supplying any data to suggest such a thing, is a wholesale rejection of the scientific method.
The person you replied to never said anything about Parler itself, let alone whether platforms that don’t follow the popular consensus should exist. That is unambiguously good. What they said was that the people who run Parler are fascist bootlickers, which, now that Trump has said in as many words that he plans to be a dictator, is true of anyone who still supports him.
Can’t help but notice your response didn’t address the piracy issue. Can I assume we agree on that?
The problem with “big science” is that the ordinary person has no conceivable means by which to verify any of their claims, they have to be taken by faith. And there have been many, many cases in the past where this turned out to be a mistake. Unlike what some people will have you believe, science is never really settled, things that used to be the common consensus have turned out to be wrong many times in the past. What makes you think that nowadays, we’re somehow past all that, just because our methods are more precise than our forefathers’? Why should the knowledge we have now be the end-all-be-all when not too long ago, doctors used to prescribe cigarettes as a treatment for asthma?
Okay, but that’s just an opinion, not scientific consensus. People on Parler think the Fediverse is full of pedophiles, does that give them the right to shut it down?
I don’t care about stealing as long as there’s a legitimate need and it’s not just out of laziness or greed. I used to pirate my games and software when I was too broke to afford them, but once I started earning more money, I gave up on that and started paying for them, even though pirating would have sometimes been easier or more convenient.
So you disagree with the scientific consensus. Cool. Where’s your data to the contrary? When are you publishing your study? Or are you just here to cast doubt on the validity of science as a concept, and use that as a basis to believe whatever a talking head says?
Parler advertises itself towards Trump supporters. I think it’s safe to say there are Trump supporters there. Also, once again, neither I nor the OP said anything at all about Parler itself, only its founders. Where did you get the idea that I think it should be shut down?
I already told you why piracy isn’t stealing. Do you have a response to that?
It’s becoming increasingly obvious you’re not arguing in good faith. I’m going to bed now. You’ll have to pretend to argue with someone else for a while.
Strawman. I didn’t say I disagree with it, I just listed some valid reasons for why people might.
Yeah, okay, I get it, you just hate them. That’s allowed of course. I’m just pointing out that hating them for hating you makes you no better than them.
Of course it’s stealing, your justifications don’t change that. Like I said, I don’t think it’s objectionable when it’s done for legitimate reasons (like if the company removes access for something you already bought and paid for), and forgivable if you’re too broke to afford it, but it’s stealing nevertheless.
Only if your science is comfortable with being questioned and doesn’t require banning, unpersoning, or othering people for the sake of achieving consensus.
How many of your loved ones has Trump killed or is directly responsible for? If zero, then how do you know his threats are credible? Politicians make wild promises all the time, especially during election years, and then end up not keeping them. Unless he has personally sent you a letter saying he’ll kill your mom if he gets elected, I’m gonna suggest you’re overreacting just a little bit.
I said that regardless of whether or not legitimate reasons for it may exist in some circumstances, it is still stealing. If that doesn’t look like a counterargument to you, then I don’t know what does.
Lookie here! This thread has 8 parallel lines.
Thanks for your response.
To point 1: agreed. Being right does not give anyone license to commit atrocities or force their opinions on others, because people often need a bit of time to come to accept the truth for themselves. As long as there is no danger of imminent greater harm, it’s better to be patient and let them come to terms with it on their own.
To point 3: agreed. Best to just call a spade a spade. That said, if a company promises (even if only by implication) to provide unlimited access to a product or content for a given price, and then goes back on their promise and removes that access, it could certainly also reasonably be considered theft. Doesn’t matter if it’s technically legal, if they created the appearance of ownership, they were stealing by deception.
A good comparison might be home title fraud, where thieves create the appearance of owning a home by faking documents and signatures in order to legally transfer the title of ownership and then borrow against it. When that happens, we still hold the thief responsible and not the clerk who was fooled by a fake signature.