Skepchick Warring with Dawkins Again

[Coito ergo sum]

The fundamental difference is between material and immaterial property. They are very different concepts and society tends to treat them differently.

The main difference is one is easier to steal than the other and because its easy to do , many people do so they try to justify IP theft . If a large number of people break a law it doesn't necessary make it a bad law it just makes most people criminals

Actually, the main difference is that a copyright is merely a partial property right, limited to limited rights of reproduction and distribution both of which have exceptions, and all of which is a creature of statute. If the copyright law is repealed, then copying intellectual material would not be unlawful (like it traditionally was). Writing a book is not the same thing as building a car, and comparing the two is comparing oranges and nectarines.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm still buying an object, not actually licensing the work for derivative or reproduction rights... that copy still is my property, and my rights about said property need defending against corporations that would build self destruction devices in it or tell me how I may dispose of it without letting me have my say at contract negociation

The object you are buying is the physical media (which is fundamentally worthless and in the future won't exist), you are in effect renting the right to use the data on it.

You do have say in the contract its the crap that you that no one ever reads but you voluntary agree with when you install software or play a film. It usually says if you don't agree with this take it back and get a refund.

Yes, but they are also subject to the law, and when they say you may not record the baseball game without the express written consent of major league baseball, it is not legally binding. They're saying it. But, you are not breaking the law by merely recording the game.

[MrJonno]

Says who? Are you advancing a natural right?

Never, only what is legal or not legal, but the law should not be getting involved in civil contracts unless there is a health and safety issue or extreme exploitation which is somewhat unlikely when buying a CD

[Coito ergo sum]

Says who? Are you advancing a natural right?

Never, only what is legal or not legal, but the law should not be getting involved in civil contracts unless there is a health and safety issue or extreme exploitation which is somewhat unlikely when buying a CD

But you are misstating the law.

[MrJonno]

I'm only stating what the law should be, I only get am minor influence in setting it

[Hermit]

The European Court of Justice is wrong, it shouldnt be saying ( no judge shoudl be) what is legal or not legal thats not a courts job, its elected politicans

The court needed to determine just how far copyright law - as it is formulated - can go, and came to its decision. The court did not overrule copyright law. The task of judges is to adjudicate on a case by case basis if an action is legal or not. By doing so they necessarily interpret the law, not overrule it. That's what courts of appeal are there for, and that's how First-sale and Exhaustion doctrines come from. Essentially, they make verdicts of inferior courts in disputed cases of law by determining what the relevant law meant, but did not make explicit.


Now, back to the abortion issue: In the past the growth of the human population was so low because something like 80% of offspring did not survive long enough to reach a reproductive age. So it didn't matter how many women had twelve or more children. Sanitation and medicine changed all that, and not just in the first world.

Now that most female newborns live long enough to bear children themselves, the situation has changed dramatically. Human population doubles every 30 years or so. The question of sustainability arises. The planet we live on, and its resources don't grow at all. I don't buy the zero-sum objection and as for predictions that population growth will continue to decrease and eventually reach zero all on its own belongs to others like the one that by 1987 we will be cruising in car-like craft in the air as a matter of course. Contraception as well as abortion should be freely available to anyone who feels the need for it.

I don't know how and if it can be determined at what stage of gestation an abortion becomes an immoral act.

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

Contraception as well as abortion should be freely available to anyone who feels the need for it.

And one would hope that the first would mostly obviate the need for the second, except in rare emergencies...

[Coito ergo sum]

http://skepchick.org/2013/06/the-greate ... ever-done/

Watch this video beginning to end, but be warned: after you finish it, you’ll receive a phone call from a mysterious person telling you that in seven days, Richard Dawkins will crawl out of your television and turn you into an atheist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFn-ixX9edg

EDIT: For those who don’t have the patience or ability to appreciate the video, fellow Skepchick contributor/Queereka editor Will Robertson has provided this pseudo-transcript (SPOILERS!):

- Dawkins: Blah blah design blah blah natural selection blah blah. Blah blah planes are designed, birds are not blah blah. Speciation blah blah.
- Dawkins: Life began with a single bacterium-like ancestor living between 3-4 billion years ago. Really? I’m pretty sure this is speculation.
- Dawkins: Genes are replicators. But not the only kind! THERE ARE ALSO MEMES!
I feel my pulse shoot up. This is about to give me a brain aneurysm.
- Dawkins: Blah blah memes blah blah anything that spreads by imitation is a meme. Blah blah selfish gene selfish meme blah blah.
- Dawkins: Blah blah 1976 blah memes are like viruses, religion is specifically a virus of the mind! Aren’t I smart???
- Dawkins: Memes are the same as genes, but they work differently! (wot?)
- Dawkins: Your memes continue on after you die but your genes may or may not! FAMOUS WHITE GUYS MEMES WORK HARD!
- Dawkins: I’d rather spread memes than genes anyway!
good news for his sex partners! And for us!
- Dawkins: Internet memes have hijacked his original idea! HOW DARE THE INTERNET! They are altered deliberately, and designed.
I see where this is going! Internet memes are like creationism!
- Dawkins: Mutation in the mind……
weird trippy video thing starts
Disembodied Dawkins head floating around on screen on stage like we’re all on acid and this is all a nightmare
A horrible auto-tuned song + music video on the screen is going–it hurts, make it stop.
- Dawkins: Something about hedgehogs.
Horrible song continues.
Only 1 minute and 40 seconds left!
This feels like the scene from LOST where Desmond (I think?) is locked in a room with a video on repeat
Dawkins returns to stage, is either really or pretending to play some fucked up electronic woodwind recorder instrument.
A dolphin was eaten by Nessie in the background
Fade to black, applause applause applause

Am I reading this wrong, or is Rebecca "Communications-Major-All-That-Booklearning-Is-Boring" Watson ripping on Richard Dawkins's presentation here?

[Collector1337]

Hermit wrote:

Contraception as well as abortion should be freely available to anyone who feels the need for it.

And one would hope that the first would mostly obviate the need for the second, except in rare emergencies...

Women should be able to get an abortion whenever they please.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hermit wrote:

Contraception as well as abortion should be freely available to anyone who feels the need for it.

And one would hope that the first would mostly obviate the need for the second, except in rare emergencies...

Women should be able to get an abortion whenever they please.

I think it's reasonable to set an outer limit, though. The UK sets it at about 21 weeks I think, absent a serious medical issue and that kind of thing.

I don't think that a baby that can be born premature and have a reasonable likelihood of survival is the same thing as an fetus to be aborted. There is no significant change that occurs by the mere fact of vaginal or c-section removal that changes the essential character of the entity. I.e., an 8th month abortion is killing a baby. Plain and simple. There ought to be a damn good reason for that. IMO.

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

Contraception as well as abortion should be freely available to anyone who feels the need for it.

And one would hope that the first would mostly obviate the need for the second, except in rare emergencies...

Women should be able to get an abortion whenever they please.

I think it's reasonable to set an outer limit, though. The UK sets it at about 21 weeks I think, absent a serious medical issue and that kind of thing.

I don't think that a baby that can be born premature and have a reasonable likelihood of survival is the same thing as an fetus to be aborted. There is no significant change that occurs by the mere fact of vaginal or c-section removal that changes the essential character of the entity. I.e., an 8th month abortion is killing a baby. Plain and simple. There ought to be a damn good reason for that. IMO.

Agreed.

@Collector:

With some time limit involved, as CES said, I agree with you. You may have missed my point; simply that I think, for everybody's sake, reducing the number of abortions by effective use of contraception is a good thing, not that women should be prevented from having abortions if that is their considered decision.

[Collector1337]

Hermit wrote:

Contraception as well as abortion should be freely available to anyone who feels the need for it.

And one would hope that the first would mostly obviate the need for the second, except in rare emergencies...

Women should be able to get an abortion whenever they please.

I think it's reasonable to set an outer limit, though. The UK sets it at about 21 weeks I think, absent a serious medical issue and that kind of thing.

I don't think that a baby that can be born premature and have a reasonable likelihood of survival is the same thing as an fetus to be aborted. There is no significant change that occurs by the mere fact of vaginal or c-section removal that changes the essential character of the entity. I.e., an 8th month abortion is killing a baby. Plain and simple. There ought to be a damn good reason for that. IMO.

Agreed.

@Collector:

With some time limit involved, as CES said, I agree with you. You may have missed my point; simply that I think, for everybody's sake, reducing the number of abortions by effective use of contraception is a good thing, not that women should be prevented from having abortions if that is their considered decision.

I'm against time limits.

[JimC]

Well. CES, I and most other people in this debate will have to disagree with you. Even the pro-arbortion movements I am aware of are usually Ok with some limit to late-term abortions.

[Collector1337]

Well. CES, I and most other people in this debate will have to disagree with you. Even the pro-arbortion movements I am aware of are usually Ok with some limit to late-term abortions.

I'm pro-abortion for different reasons than most.

[JimC]

I guess virulent misanthropy counts as a reason...