... Which one? We must specify mythology and, if required, member of the pantheon.
If we're talking Christian mythology, Jesus would have totally been a trusted seeder.
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
29 points (87.2% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54609 readers
483 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is how I see God, pretty sure it applies to seeding as well.
I am extremely confused why the medicine factories are not sharing the best recipes and running non stop.
What if God were one of us?
🎵 just a n00b like some of us 🎵
Prove gods exist, else the core question is moot.
Religion really does have the potential to blow up in one’s face, and in the worst cases, literally.
But religion has so many good sides too and much to say on many issues, so what advice does it have to offer on file-sharing? Is it a sin? Or is sharing with one’s peers a supreme act of kindness and generosity?
The first question is made irrelevant by the latter two. If religion in general had helpful things to say, it would be unambiguous. However, due to the intrinsically interpretive nature of religion, it is confusing at best and harmful at worst. Sure, some people might arrive at an answer to a question, but it is not necessarily a rational answer.
Also, the fact that religion can and is often used to turn insane notions like killing people into acceptable behavior (to the religious) should be reason enough to disregard it when seeking answers. Why should we care what religion has to say whatsoever based on this fact?
Lastly, whatever good comes from religion is humanistic in origin. All of the "good" of religion can be found without it, and if it offered anything substantively unique, magic would be real. You get to decide your own morality, and this entire article is doing precisely that, regardless of religious preference.
Time will tell if the various Gods in the universe will choose to forgive those who copy music and movies, or those who merely covet their neighbor’s files.
No it won't, because again, there's no objective evidence gods exist. Some might say that we'd find out when we die, but we have no evidence of any particular afterlife existing beyond blind assertions by people who have had near death experiences and religious texts, neither of which agree or should be taken as proof of anything (unless you want to argue that works like the Epic of Gilgamesh were also true tales).
If God(s) has a problem with piracy, let him put a stop to it himself, but I don't see him stopping real problems like billionaire robber barons and cancer in children, so nobody should feel any concern or worry that there's some cosmic policeman waiting in the bushes to jump out and catch them.
Prove gods exist, else the core question is moot.
75% of americans consider themselves religious. Your statement is wrong. Ignoring three quarters of the population because you can't get over the existence of religion is a personal failure.
Nobody here actually cares about the status of god's existence. All of us care about piracy. Find somewhere else to stand on your religion soapbox.
Hell, while we're here, did you even consider reading the article? It makes for some pretty great reading.
I quoted the article. I read it, and it's stupid. Also, religious ≠ believes in gods. 28% of Americans are "Nones" and growing, and that number includes religious people.
But whether someone cares about the status of gods' existence matters insomuch as it's the core precondition of the article. If gods don't exist, wondering what they think is like wondering what Harry Potter thinks about piracy—interesting as a shower thought, but hardly relevant to making real moral decisions.
If someone is going to bring religion into this community, I'm justified commenting on it.
I quoted the article. I read it, and it's stupid. Also, religious ≠ believes in gods. 28% of Americans are "Nones" and growing, and that number includes religious people.
The number you quoted is practically the same the one i quoted. I'm not sure why you bothered.
I completely missed your quoting the article. My bad. Even the article is saying the premise in the title is silly / unknowable. I was wondering why you were saying the same things the article was; that arguing for piracy using religion is a bit of a mixed bag.
But whether someone cares about the status of gods' existence matters insomuch as it's the core precondition of the article. If gods don't exist, wondering what they think is like wondering what Harry Potter thinks about piracy—interesting as a shower thought, but hardly relevant to making real moral decisions.
The core question is not moot because more than half the population agrees with the articles core premise. It doesn't matter if god exists, it matters that most everybody thinks one exists. Using that belief to discuss piracy is not a flawed discussion, and it is not dependent on the actual existence of a god, just the existence of people's belief in them.
It doesn't matter if god exists, it matters that most everybody thinks one exists. Using that belief to discuss piracy is not a flawed discussion, and it is not dependent on the actual existence of a god, just the existence of people's belief in them.
And here's where we disagree. I suppose I can see this logic, but my issue is that anyone can and will interpret "God's will" in their own way. How the author presents their case is less reasonable than simply talking about the moral justifications from a secular standpoint. People who rely on God's opinion that much are likely some variety of fundamentalist and not likely to be engaging in piracy in the first place.
So for the rest, why bother with the religious part, since they'll just interpret in their own way?
Let's ignore the fact that none of the major religions, or major sects of major religions, is internally consistent enough that it would be possible for a rational take on what their god's opinion is on anything modern using any kind of logic. Let's ignore that none of the sects agree with each other and that every one of them arbitrarily picks and chooses from their book and random external writings to determine "what god thinks".
It doesn't matter how many people are religious. It's still spam not actually relevant to piracy in any way.
What the fuck is up with TorrentFreak? Are they anti piracy website or something?
Deuteronomy 15:10: “You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings.”
Sounds like "share with thy neighbour" to me 😉
that's from 2010 btw
A timeless message
Must be an abhorrently slow news day over at Torrent Freak
am I the only one who doesn't like these kind of posts where they share an outside link? I mean if I wanted to read posts from somewhere else I'd just install an RSS feed to get all the topics im intrested at.
I hope this lemmy doesn't get same crappy posts as the subreddit 😫
I get your point, but to be honest, we don't usually have so many external news stories posted on the same day - it's usually more of a mix. If it gets excessive, I'll take another look at it because I agree it is a bit "low effort". I appreciate your feedback.
Also, remember that everyone's got different preferences for content. E.g., some people really hate memes, but they often get the most upvotes, so a lot of people obviously enjoy them. Fact is, however we moderate the content, it will never suit everyone's tastes 100%.