| |||||||||||||
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)Posted Nov 6, 2012 22:54 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155)In reply to: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) by Cyberax Parent article: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)
> And most of all, I utterly despise libertarians. They are beneath contempt.
See, guys, what I said about Cyberax and his anger? Was I mistaken or was I spot-on? Do you think that a productive conversation can be had with such an angry individual?
:-)
(The funniest thing is I'm not even a libertarian, bahahaa!)
(Log in to post comments)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 23:44 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Yeah, I am angry. Care to address any of my arguments?
In particular, why should "property rights" be treated different from anything else? What makes them so precious that you want them to be enforced, by government?
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 18:46 UTC (Wed) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
Nope. You are a bully and a troll who has verbally abused several people here. Your craving for attention towards your non arguments won't be sated by me
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 11:30 UTC (Wed) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link]
>Do you think that a productive conversation can be had with such an angry individual?
You don't have a choice - either you engage in the discussion, or you're provoking another poster for the fun of it. This is an ad-hominem attack - you're playing the person and not the debate - I call that trolling.
When it comes to it, your post which spawns this discussion says that we have to do something by definition it *can't* do: overcome the system. There's a legacy structure in place which we can't remove - our physical bodies, the laws of thermodynamics and a wealth system which motivates people to do work against the laws of thermodynamics (arranging a bit of temporary order in the chaos) on threat of depriving or harming your physical body. If you can come up with a way past that, I'll happily sublime into a state as an energy being with you.
So it's not about bringing down the government, or the monied people, or the entrenched system-as-it-is. We have to get people together to take apart and rebuild the system-as-it-is into the system-as-it-will-be. That's what Richard advocates, and why he's right and you're wrong.
K3n.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 18:59 UTC (Wed) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
You present a false choice. I do have the choice of pointing out verbal abuse and manipulation WHILE choosing not to engage the bully. Contrary to your implicit claim that I am "provoking" this provocateur, that is what I just chose to do. You may not like it and you may feel that I somehow have a duty to submit myself to more bullying, but that is the beauty of reality -- you don't get to choose what I will do.
|
|||||||||||||