It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science & Technology, when shared freely, are a threat to the social order

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
It's no secret really, I'd ask Aaron Swartz or the non televised people who freely shared science and technology, but they're mostly dead or deprived of internets.

I say share and not "steal" because to steal something, someone must be deprived of said thing.

Science as observable reproducible fact that leads the human mind to objective conclusions is unique to our species.

Yet when observable reproducible facts that lead the human mind to objective conclusions are shared freely, reactions include censorship, denial, insult, and depending on the nature of the information, murder.

Here is a good example: short videographic evidence of genetic tampering leading to, among other things, deformed skulls, presented by medical professionals.

The interests of the military-industrial complex, in the form of Monsanto inc. in this instance, are put into moral question by this scientific study based on observable reproducible objective fact.

Therefore it is not broadcast or taught in public schools.

Which prompts the question: what is?

Thank you for contributing without foul language as per ATS CC&R




posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Sorry. If someone else invented something and you "share" it, you are stealing it. Theft.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Sorry. If someone else invented something and you "share" it, you are stealing it. Theft.

this is incorrect. lets say im watching a youtube video that i like ans i decide to share it onto facebook. am i stealing it? no.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Zen64

Depends on what it is. If it's the brand new batman vs superman movie then yes, you are.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Zen64

Depends on what it is. If it's the brand new batman vs superman movie then yes, you are.

lets just agree to disagree on that one. me personally i don't think sharing anything that is digital and that can be copied an infinite amount of times to be stealing. since the original product is still intact.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:20 AM
link   
lol

this is what you get from the OP

You're wrong, because words have meanings, and stealing means www.oxforddictionaries.com...

not applicable to sharing data?
then it's not stealing.

Now if you keep expressing your opinion that lighting a candle with a candle is stealing fire, do include your opinion about the substance of the original post, thanks



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Zen64

1000 people watch it, 10 who would have gone to see the movie now don't. They lost money from that. YOU STOLE that money from them.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

If you take my candle and light it and walk to yours to light yours with it you did not steal my fire, you stole part of my candle. It cost me money.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Irrelevant, the candle is already lit, no part of the data is consumed by sharing it
most ridiculous straw man in the thread so far

this is why the censorship of data on the internet is liberticide

you're wrong, and not contributing in any interesting way



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Who cares if it is lit if you take it for YOUR purposes and it costs me money? If you want to create a scenario where I am not losing anything, then you are create a false argument.

I just showed how sharing costs the person being stolen from money. The moment you cause a loss you are stealing.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Who cares if it is lit if you take it for YOUR purposes and it costs me money? If you want to create a scenario where I am not losing anything, then you are create a false argument. I just showed how sharing costs the person being stolen from money. The moment you cause a loss you are stealing.


You are wrong

words have meanings, stealing has a meaning, and it is not applicable to sharing data

some data is private in nature: this is why it is criminal to read the correspondence of others
even if it's to prevent terrorism
which is turbo retarded because people get murdered by terrorists all the time and billions are spent on raping privacy

in the case of science, which is the topic here, privacy should not apply in the same sense as it does in correspondence:

if to keep your movie picture example, someone sells copies of a movie they did not make, the money righfully belongs to the moviemakers, and failing to transmit that money to them would be stealing

however, if someone does not play monopoly, and would not pay to see a movie, their seeing the movie, or reading the research paper, is not a loss of money to the owner, who in either cases gets nothing as no money is generated

it is even less stealing, because stealing by definition implies deprivation of which there is none in the case of sharing data



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

If you would never go see the movie and you personally watched it, then you can argue there is no theft. Once you SHARE that movie, there is theft. You have deprived them of income, there is deprivation, it's pretty easy to understand.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If you only see movies that are free of charge, no deprivation occurs whether or not you see any particular movie.

Stealing occurs in this example only if money that belongs to someone is taken by someone else.

Not the case with people who lack funds, say students, read research papers they couldn't afford.

Only ignorance is denied in this case, no money is involved and therefore no money is stolen.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If you only see movies that are free of charge, no deprivation occurs whether or not you see any particular movie.

Stealing occurs in this example only if money that belongs to someone is taken by someone else.

Not the case with people who lack funds, say students, read research papers they couldn't afford.

Only ignorance is denied in this case, no money is involved and therefore no money is stolen.

You are not in their head, you can not say what they would or would not do. You watching it yourself your argument is strong. Sharing with another, it falls apart. And if sharing is fine, you can share with anyone, the whole world .. and they lose millions ....



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




You are not in their head, you can not say what they would or would not do. You watching it yourself your argument is strong. Sharing with another, it falls apart. And if sharing is fine, you can share with anyone, the whole world .. and they lose millions ....


Sharing is the opposite of stealing

to lose millions one must first have those millions
if there is no spoon, one cannot lose the spoon

if movie goers who have a theater budget decide to watch movies at their friend's house instead of going to the theater and paying to see the movie, it means they as potential customers prefer to not purchase the theater tickets, which is theft of service if done in a theater, but not if their friend willingly invites them over for a movie.
Popcorn may be shared also, and unless the popcorn is taken from a popcorn store without paying despite being sold, there is also no theft
monsanto claiming that your homegrown corn in your private yard is monsanto's intellectual property is the same argument as the theater claiming that dormitory dwellers lending their minds to the propaganda is theft despite no money being involved.

It's wrong, stupid and dangerous, because once you accept it, the oxygen released from water by the patented plants also belongs to monsanto

are you an air thief?



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol

Sharing is the opposite of stealing

If I take money from a bank vault and share it I stole.


to lose millions one must first have those millions
if there is no spoon, one cannot lose the spoon

That's about as weak minded as an answer can get. I buy a spoon on ebay, pure gold. While it's in transit you take it and "share" it with your friends. Are you telling me I never had the spoon so I did not lose anything? You really think that?


if movie goers who have a theater budget decide to watch movies at their friend's house instead of going to the theater and paying to see the movie, it means they as potential customers prefer to not purchase the theater tickets, which is theft of service if done in a theater, but not if their friend willingly invites them over for a movie.

And the company who made the movie for the purpose of selling is now out money. Any way you justify it you took money from their pockets. That is theft.


Popcorn may be shared also, and unless the popcorn is taken from a popcorn store without paying despite being sold, there is also no theft
monsanto claiming that your homegrown corn in your private yard is monsanto's intellectual property is the same argument as the theater claiming that dormitory dwellers lending their minds to the propaganda is theft despite no money being involved.

Is your homegrown corn your corn or monsanto's corn? There you grow it doesn't matter if you stole the seeds.


It's wrong, stupid and dangerous, because once you accept it, the oxygen released from water by the patented plants also belongs to monsanto

are you an air thief?

Logical fallacy. Show me where they now own oxygen.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




If I take money from a bank vault and share it I stole.


Yes, because you stole, not because you shared.




That's about as weak minded as an answer can get. I buy a spoon on ebay, pure gold. While it's in transit you take it and "share" it with your friends. Are you telling me I never had the spoon so I did not lose anything? You really think that?


Nobody thinks that.
Again, the stealing occurs at the moment of stealing in this new example, not at the moment of sharing.




And the company who made the movie for the purpose of selling is now out money. Any way you justify it you took money from their pockets. That is theft.


Taking money out of someone's pocket is theft.
Even if it has not yet reached their pocket.
Not taking money is not theft.





Is your homegrown corn your corn or monsanto's corn? There you grow it doesn't matter if you stole the seeds.


Monsanto's argument (you really don't know this?) is that once you BUY the seeds, and reap the fruit and replant it, it STILL belongs to Monsanto, which is wrong.




Logical fallacy. Show me where they now own oxygen.


They don't.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol

Yes, because you stole, not because you shared.

The result is the same. You took something, they lost money. You somehow think adding the word share makes it alright.


Nobody thinks that.
Again, the stealing occurs at the moment of stealing in this new example, not at the moment of sharing.

Your reply did not address my post. Just because the spoon was not in my hand does not mean it doesn't exist. Just because people had not yet paid to see the movie does not mean no one will pay. They lost money. That's theft.




Taking money out of someone's pocket is theft.
Even if it has not yet reached their pocket.
Not taking money is not theft.

Which is why your sharing is theft. They lose money. Theft.





Monsanto's argument (you really don't know this?) is that once you BUY the seeds, and reap the fruit and replant it, it STILL belongs to Monsanto, which is wrong.

You can't replant it. Their plants don't produce seeds. If you do not like the terms do not use their seeds.




They don't.

Then it probably should not be used in an argument.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




The result is the same. You took something, they lost money. You somehow think adding the word share makes it alright.


The results of your two proposed thought experiments, which -again- are of little value to this thread are not the same.
a) you steal money from a vault => the result is theft, someone has less money afterwards
b) you watch a movie with your room mate => the result is sociality, nobody has less anything afterwards




Your reply did not address my post. Just because the spoon was not in my hand does not mean it doesn't exist. Just because people had not yet paid to see the movie does not mean no one will pay. They lost money. That's theft.


Theft is an existing word, which you don't get to define, just to use properly.
They don't lose money if there is no money.
In example a) there is money, in example b) there isn't.




Which is why your sharing is theft. They lose money. Theft.


You don't lose money in a money free situation any more than you can miscarry a foetus as a man.




You can't replant it. Their plants don't produce seeds. If you do not like the terms do not use their seeds.


Nobody who experiences this theft wants those terminator seeds (not the only monsanto seeds)
yet monsanto has bought the FDA so if you want corn, gotta buy FDA approved seeds, which are monsanto's (and their pepsi equivalent which they also own)




Then it probably should not be used in an argument.


Thank you for being able to see this



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

There's a compelling argument for making research freely available and not behind paywalls but it's not as simple as "just make it free lol" and certainly not as disingenuous as claiming that infringing copyright isn't theft (argue semantics all you want but it is).



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join