Receiving credit for your work
| Stirner criticizes conventional notions of revolution, arguing that social movements aimed at overturning the state are tacitly statist because they are implicitly aimed at the establishment of a new state thereafter. |
This statement regarding Stirnir's views on revolution contract his own philosophy. Why can't it also be argued that the revolutionist is also acting in their own selfish interests and thereby abiding by the principles of his philosophy.
Oookay then.
That's non sequitur. It merely implied that he wasn't sure of how to proceed in the discussion (though that too isn't necessarily the case). It does not necessarily mean that he would return to it holding his old views with new arguments.
I find it a bit ironic that you think LB is in any way as a "corporate". From his personal webside, lb-stuff.com:
Normally I'd agree, but such transparency would discourage people from voicing concerns with posts to the site admin, as it would open them up to unjustified personal attacks (which, let's not kid ourselves, would happen). A post report isn't even as strong as a warning on other forums, after all.
It doesn't seem like you quite understand that none of LB's posts (from what I read) condoned stealing. Let me reiterate, he made the assertion that credit, as an intangible social concept, cannot be stolen. He asserted as a side note that copyright as it is currently is inherently flawed. It does not follow that he supports the stealing of others' work.
Okay, so you think that. I think you're gravely mistaken, but fine. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but who said you were entitled to smear him? As a preemptive, please do not start with "free speech". There are such things as defamation and hate speech, and furthermore free speech clauses are intended to protect individuals and groups from zealous governmental censorship, and little else.
-Albatross
| zepher wrote: |
|---|
| ...for LB to recant with a phrase containing "for a while" seems to suggest that he accepts defeat for now but will rethink his strategy for future. |
That's non sequitur. It merely implied that he wasn't sure of how to proceed in the discussion (though that too isn't necessarily the case). It does not necessarily mean that he would return to it holding his old views with new arguments.
| ...if I am correct then it highlights that he does not really accept defeat on this topic but merely acts as a wounded corporate who tries to be evasive while in the losing seat. |
I find it a bit ironic that you think LB is in any way as a "corporate". From his personal webside, lb-stuff.com:
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| Most of my work is unlicensed in the public domain |
| it seems like [report transparency] will be a very handy new feature. |
Normally I'd agree, but such transparency would discourage people from voicing concerns with posts to the site admin, as it would open them up to unjustified personal attacks (which, let's not kid ourselves, would happen). A post report isn't even as strong as a warning on other forums, after all.
| In the same way LB has claimed that he condones stealing someone else's work if you unable to produce such work all by yourself. |
It doesn't seem like you quite understand that none of LB's posts (from what I read) condoned stealing. Let me reiterate, he made the assertion that credit, as an intangible social concept, cannot be stolen. He asserted as a side note that copyright as it is currently is inherently flawed. It does not follow that he supports the stealing of others' work.
| That in my opinion amounts to a pathetic person who wants what others have (hence Wanna-B) but is unwilling to commit the actual work for it. |
-Albatross
| It doesn't seem like you quite understand that none of LB's posts (from what I read) condoned stealing. |
I understand LB's post but I don't think you understand my post. My posts inferred that their are consequences to stealing credit for someone else's work. Albeit, that consequences will be different from stealing something physical but none the less still bears unwanted consequences.
The posts above does indicate that stealing credit for a book is a grey area and as such should constitute a breech of copyright.
Why should the same not be assumed about computer software - or is it convenient to draw a line when and where you choose.
*whispering quietly to everyone*
Guys, a wild YouTube commenter has appeared. If we just ignore it hopefully it'll go away
Guys, a wild YouTube commenter has appeared. If we just ignore it hopefully it'll go away
| Guys, a wild YouTube commenter has appeared. |
What exactly makes me a wild YouTube commenter?
| What exactly makes me a wild YouTube commenter? |
Instead of having a friendly debate on the subject of the thread like everyone else in this thread was doing, you seem more intent on spewing personal attacks against LB. We have no problem with you disagreeing with what LB has stated, in fact I myself don't agree with his argument either. Though that doesn't give you a right to start stooping to personal attacks, which is commonly what youtube comments look like (Post after post of personal attacks).
All we are saying is if you want to continue focusing on personal attacks of LB then you might as well just leave the thread, since you aren't contributing anything positive to it. Otherwise if you want to submit your opinion for the subject at hand you are more then welcome to do so, but stick to the subject at hand.
We are usually
So in short keep it clean and stop with the personal attacks against LB, if you do so people will be much more welcoming and will be more willing to hear your point of view on this matter.
Edit: "Very welcome" probably wasn't the right choice of words.
Last edited on
| you seem more intent on spewing personal attacks against LB. |
I did not mean to come off as that. I only wanted to emphasize the error in his argument and in doing so tried contrasting the negative argument he supported to moral aspects pertaining to his own person. Granted the LB - Wanna-B statement was under handed - I retract that.
My views regarding stealing of credit for someone else's work is still that of a thief, probably even worse - if you think about it: a thief who steals your dvd player steals an item that can be replaced and causes you some grief while someone that steals credit for your personal work thereby harming you in numerous implicit ways and gets away with it, can cause you a lifetimes worth of unrecoverable grief.
On that basis I will equate anyone who can condone the stealing of credit of someone else's work on the same level or as someone who would condone common theft. Granted, LB has recanted his statement and it has been cleared up that his phrase within his recant does mean to indicate that he will only recant for now and later retry his hand at justifying an argument that supports such under handed behavior - so I will reserve my views and opinions on him being a corporate or incentivised implicitly/explicitly by such sources for now ... but will keep a close eye on him :)
I don't think I explained well that my original point (and hence the topic title) is that credit is given, not taken. What you call stealing credit, I call misattribution. I did a really poor job of staying on track, though.
Last edited on
| I don't think I explained well that my original point (and hence the topic title) is that credit is given, not taken. |
Even so, for credit to be given incorrectly means that the one accepting it incorrectly is usually the person who has promoted this in the first place.
Even if you are given the credit for someone else's work by accident and do nothing to rectify the illusion but enjoy riding the wave then I still don't respect you.
That's ok zepher, none of us respect you either. Maybe if you got out of your moms basement and learned how to correctly communicate with people and function in the real world we would, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
| That's ok zepher, none of us respect you either. |
My disrespect is aimed at people who would try justifying under handed behavior as described in the posts above. Are you then grouping yourself as well as all others on this site with the attributes that I disrespect and in so need to simply lash back that you disrespect me for the reason that I disrespect you and all others that hold onto such mentality.
I thought though that the preceding posts on this topic indicated that most of you were not in agreement with LB's views. What gives now???
There are 10 2 possibilities here, Modshop.
1) zepher is a troll. In that case, ModShop, you just gave him what he wanted. Congrats.
2) zepher is not a troll. In that case. You likely just embittered him, making him less likely to treat this community with respect. Congrats.
-Albatross
1) zepher is a troll. In that case, ModShop, you just gave him what he wanted. Congrats.
2) zepher is not a troll. In that case. You likely just embittered him, making him less likely to treat this community with respect. Congrats.
-Albatross
| zepher wrote: |
|---|
| I thought though that the preceding posts on this topic indicated that most of you were not in agreement with LB's views. What gives now??? |
Last edited on
| You can disagree with a friend and still be friends |
It can be argued that one's views and opinions are intrinsic to a one's character and as such exerts influence on one's circle of friends.
Suppose you openly admit that you have no issue with someone having sexual intercourse with a child but do not participate in such activities yourself.
You may be allowed to live in any neighborhood due to you having no previous criminal record in this respect, but I bet you won't be trusted, respected and accepted by many (if not all) communities.
On this basis, I would claim that one's opinion therefor do matter and influences the way people perceive you.
Your friends seem very keen to run to your defense when your views are being refuted by someone they don't know.
I wonder would they be as willing to run to your defense if you advance your views into actual actions and become attacked by those whom you wrong?
Last edited on
| What if that view consists of allowing opposing views? |
Please elaborate? Under what circumstances would you allow an adult to have sex with a child and which circumstances not?
Yeah, zepher's either a troll, or needs to mature a few years before trying to argue on the internet again. He still hasn't accepted that a) he's wrong in his actions, that b) LB isn't pro-theft, and that c) many of us are at least okay with LB, but do not agree with what we thought his views were, and the two are not mutually exclusive.
-Albatross
-Albatross
| Yeah, zepher's either a troll, or needs to mature a few years before trying to argue on the internet again. He still hasn't accepted that a) he's wrong in his actions, that b) LB isn't pro-theft, and that c) many of us are at least okay with LB, but do not agree with what we thought his views were, and the two are not mutually exclusive. |
How can I accept that I am wrong in my actions when I have not received any valuable points against my arguments as opposed to me showing you guys where LB's argument is logically flawed. Please show me these posts that prove different.
I never called LB for being pro-theft but do claim that he is trying to justify it in some cases (similar to someone who would justify certain conditions under which to have sex with a child ...).
Anyway ... I asked [NoXzema] to elaborate on my previous point - so would like a response from him on that ... unless you are also [NoXzema] and employ this level of subterfuge to evade answering.
Alright, I'll humor you, just in case you're not a troll.
This argument is flawed. The influence that one can exert on others depends on those others' susceptibility to influence and their natural biases. Just because one has friends with certain views does not meant they will share those views. Need an example? I grew up my whole life with two evangelical Christian best friends. None of my other friends were outspoken members of another religion, vocally atheist, or vocally agnostic. I'm an agnostic (de-facto atheist, really), and never even considered converting to Christianity.
This is not the same as your influence premise above. I don't think anyone takes issue with this. And who are you to say that LB's views haven't influenced the way we perceive him?
EDIT: And nothing NoXzema said was in relation to your child abuse premises. In regards to... one of your opinion arguments... he asked "well, what if the opinion in question was that one should allow people to have opposing views?" to which you acted in what circumstances he supports intercourse with children. This is illogical thinking here.
Nobody's arguing that LB's arguments WEREN'T flawed. The issue that everyone is taking with you is that you insulted him and are making a huge deal out of a friendly forum debate, as someone who has no standing or respect in this forum (well, you almost certainly don't after this debate). The debate was settled long ago, yet you chose to revive the threat just to insult LB. In fact, you've contributed nothing to the debate except ad-homenim and a number of unnecessary premises that aren't even related to the argument. This is disrespectful behavior, and this level of disrespect isn't tolerated in most circles.
Now you're playing semantics. No, you didn't use the words "pro-theft", and LB never tried to justify theft in even one circumstance. For the third time, to say that stealing credit isn't possible in the long run is not the same as justifying actions made to the end of committing said theft. If you cannot see that, my point stands. You need to mature a few years before arguing on the internet again, kiddo.
You know what? I think you're trying to bring up child abuse just to try and color LB people who are taking issue with you in a bad light, without considering the disparity between child abuse and stealing credit. That contributes nothing to a debate. A good debate appeals solely on a logical level. Trying to bring emotions into it is the source of a wide variety of issues in modern politics. And trying to bring such negative light against an opponent... that makes you worse than LB if he HAD stated he supports the stealing of credit.
-Albatross
Can't believe I'm wasting my time on this.
| It can be argued that one's views and opinions are intrinsic to a one's character and as such exerts influence on one's circle of friends. |
This argument is flawed. The influence that one can exert on others depends on those others' susceptibility to influence and their natural biases. Just because one has friends with certain views does not meant they will share those views. Need an example? I grew up my whole life with two evangelical Christian best friends. None of my other friends were outspoken members of another religion, vocally atheist, or vocally agnostic. I'm an agnostic (de-facto atheist, really), and never even considered converting to Christianity.
| On this basis, I would claim that one's opinion therefor do matter and influences the way people perceive you. |
This is not the same as your influence premise above. I don't think anyone takes issue with this. And who are you to say that LB's views haven't influenced the way we perceive him?
| Please elaborate? Under what circumstances would you allow an adult to have sex with a child and which circumstances not? |
EDIT: And nothing NoXzema said was in relation to your child abuse premises. In regards to... one of your opinion arguments... he asked "well, what if the opinion in question was that one should allow people to have opposing views?" to which you acted in what circumstances he supports intercourse with children. This is illogical thinking here.
| Your friends seem very keen to run to your defense when your views are being refuted by someone they don't know. |
| How can I accept that I am wrong in my actions when I have not received any valuable points against my arguments as opposed to me showing you guys where LB's argument is logically flawed. |
Nobody's arguing that LB's arguments WEREN'T flawed. The issue that everyone is taking with you is that you insulted him and are making a huge deal out of a friendly forum debate, as someone who has no standing or respect in this forum (well, you almost certainly don't after this debate). The debate was settled long ago, yet you chose to revive the threat just to insult LB. In fact, you've contributed nothing to the debate except ad-homenim and a number of unnecessary premises that aren't even related to the argument. This is disrespectful behavior, and this level of disrespect isn't tolerated in most circles.
| I wonder would they be as willing to run to your defense if you advance your views into actual actions and become attacked by those whom you wrong? |
| I never called LB for being pro-theft but do claim that he is trying to justify it in some cases |
Now you're playing semantics. No, you didn't use the words "pro-theft", and LB never tried to justify theft in even one circumstance. For the third time, to say that stealing credit isn't possible in the long run is not the same as justifying actions made to the end of committing said theft. If you cannot see that, my point stands. You need to mature a few years before arguing on the internet again, kiddo.
| similar to someone who would justify certain conditions under which to have sex with a child ... |
You know what? I think you're trying to bring up child abuse just to try and color LB people who are taking issue with you in a bad light, without considering the disparity between child abuse and stealing credit. That contributes nothing to a debate. A good debate appeals solely on a logical level. Trying to bring emotions into it is the source of a wide variety of issues in modern politics. And trying to bring such negative light against an opponent... that makes you worse than LB if he HAD stated he supports the stealing of credit.
-Albatross
Can't believe I'm wasting my time on this.
Last edited on
TheRabbitologist: You can play chess with a pigeon, and no matter how badly you beat it it's still going to knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and say it won.