Here's to hoping that'll happen someday ;-)

This thread really is amazing. I knew I'd be attacked for throwing around basic human nature but I didn't expect to be called a sociopath, psychotic, and a troll.

Now I really understand why people like GameRager gets de-rec'd around here. You try to apply basic reasoning and hypothetical to issues like this, and people go ballistic. Not that it surprises me, because just like theft is a basic human trait, so is irrationally attacking another person's view point because it doesn't support your own. The same thing would happen if I defended DRM around here, it'd be like feeding chum to a bunch of sharks.

If you've seriously been able to go through life without ripping off someone, without pirating something, without doing any bad thing at all; then more power to you. You are the vast, vast minority in society.

But I don't want to hear sermons on how evil piracy and other things are when you're just as guilty from past actions. Even if you feel bad for your actions, it doesn't give you any moral high ground whatsoever. You are a pirate, reformed or not, just as many others. You were part of the "problem".

Someone used murder as an example earlier: If I go out and murder someone, then serve my time, I have no moral right to chastise or blame others if they do the same thing. Same with burglary. Sure, I can go try to keep people from doing it or "reform" them, but sitting on a little high tower going "You are what's wrong with the world today!", I couldn't do it. I'm just as guilty from my past actions, regretted or not. In my mind, in this way, piracy is the same. You can try to convince others not to pirate, but if you've ever swapped games, ever downloaded a game, ever allowed a friend to install your game, or installed their game you have no right to wave a little "I'm better then you" flag at people. You are no different.

There is a world of difference between going "I wish people wouldn't pirate. Games are getting cheaper due to competition between online retailers. You can support the industry with just five dollars," OR going "People who pirate are evil, are destroying the industry, and have no reason to ever pirate. I would never do so, and so I hate all pirates and wish they'd get what's coming to them!"

I must have missed that it when I skimmed the thread yesterday. I only replied when I saw your bolded comment that I really disagreed with. In any event, I agree with you, ad hominem remarks have no place in civilized debate.

I have actually defended DRM on these forums on several different occasions. While it wasn't a popular opinion, I don't recall it getting terribly nasty. Sure, I had about 10 people all disagree with me at once, but that is the nature of stating an unpopular opinion.

Well, I won't say that I have never done a bad thing. That would be ridiculous. I have said and done many things that I have regretted later. However, I have never knowingly stolen someone's property (whether tangible or intellectual). So, while my sins are myriad, I don't count piracy as one of them.

As an Existentialist, I actually agree with this to an extent. A person is defined by their actions, whether past or present. However, I do believe there is an intrinsic difference between an unapologetic thief and a reformed thief. While they both have done harm in the past, only one of them has decided to stop causing that same harm in the future.

EDIT2:
As Vestin correctly pointed out in a PM, my example was ambiguous. What I am describing above is not 100% Existential. What I meant to say is that a thief who changes his ways and actively ceases stealing is different than an unapologetic thief that continues to steal. It does NOT mitigate the reformed thief's prior larcenous actions, however the two individuals should be considered as separate cases in light of their different later actions.

Well, that comparison is just silly; it is falls under the Straw Man Fallacy of debating. The only thing murder and piracy have in common is that they are both crimes. Murder is orders of magnitude more serious that intellectual theft (laws in most countries concur with my opinion, at least). I wouldn't even bother trying to debate that stance, because it can only lead to getting sidetracked form your original point.

Well, this is closer the the same crime, but it is still multiples worse. Burglarly implies breaking into to someone's physical property and/or invading their personal space. Intellectual property theft commits neither of these crimes to effect theft.

Well, of course. You never win any sort of argument by telling someone that you are better than they are. Once you start talking about the character of the other person (whether in relation to your own character or not), you have fallen into using the Ad Hominem Fallacy of debating. Yeah, it just gets people mad and they stop even wanting to hear you out. No, regardless of your past actions, you must convince the other person on the merits of the argument itself. Nothing short of this will work.

Exactly. I agree totally. One is a legitimate argument that attempts to sway the other side with facts. The other is someone merely casting judgment on someone else without even attempting a civilized discussion. In the former, folks can argue over the merits of the 'facts' involved and possibly reach a consensus (or, at least, agree to disagree). In the latter, the only options open are to get defensive or ignore the 'argument' completely.

EDIT:
A couple typos were bugging me. In particular, I used 'their' instead of 'there' in one place. Pet peeve of mine... bleh.

You gave examples of stealing from co-workers and kids and not feeling bad about it because it's "human nature." You even assumed that everyone else does it. That makes you either a sociopath or a troll.