More #$%& from #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ Re: [ PFIR ] Netanyahu's son removes anti-Semitic meme from Facebook following outcry

[juan.g71 at gmail.com (juan)]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:09:00 +0000
Hollow Domer <shediedfrombeingtoof at redchan.it> wrote:


> >
> 
> So ideas are not the property of someone,
> unless it is a new idea,

	not what I said. I don't think ideas are property, full stop. I
	was just following some false premise of yours to some stupid &
	false conclusion. 


> then it belongs to all those who thought before it,
> because it's 99.99999999% theirs.
> 
> Do you even read before you post ?

	Maybe my english was worse than usual, but still, that's not
	what I meant.


> 
> > privilege: a non-right
> >
> 
> So we are in agreement.

	I don't know. So you finally learned what privilege and
	statism entail?


> 
> > copyright and patents
> >
> 
> The legal terms are what we disagree on.  


	Looks like we disagree on the legal concepts, starting with the
	legal concept of 'state' from which 'state granted' stuff
	comes...


> The right to ownership is
> not. I concede to your argument against my defense of laws to defend
> things, seeable or not.

	I'm not sure what you mean with "defense of laws to defend
	things" but meh...


> 
> > And you are accusing me of doing what *you* do? please.
> >
> 
> If you think that the right to ownership can only be granted by
> others, 

	No. As a matter of fact, personal rights don't need to be
	granted by others. They are inherent to persons. 

	What I am saying is that your goddammed intellectual 'property'
	is NOT A RIGHT. It's something the state mafia made up, and
	it's 'technically' called a 'privilege' 'granted' by the
	'state'.

	Just like if some fucking puritan psychos declare that you have
	to be 21 years old to drink, then 'underage drinking' is a
	'crime' only in the minds of fucking puritan psychos, but it is
	not a real crime. Just like 'intellectual property' is not real
	property.

	

> which is what you argue when you say that the right to copy
> can only be granted as a privilege by some external authority.

	Not what I said. I either wasn't clear enough or you are
	misreading me (on purpose).


> the right to copy can only be granted as a privilege	

	the right to copy doesn't belong only to the author. ANYBODY can
	rightfully copy anything. As long they have enough paper and
	pencil at least.

	On the other hand, preventing people from copying whatever the
	fuck they want to copy, and only allowing some people
	('copyright/patent holders') to copy, means granting privileges
	to 'copyright holders' and violating the rights of the rest of
	the  world. Is that now clear enough? 

> 
> > at some point the cost of writing a full
> > counterargument to a piece of bullshit is too high.
> >
> 
> Budget limits.  Request more money for the next fiscal quarter,
> fbianon.

	that would be you?


> > United States of America was founded in 1776
> > as a slave society/concentration camp?
> >
> 
> The United States is â??a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed,
> circumcised Jew bastards".
> -Bobby Fischer
> 
> Prove Jews didn't own all the slave ships.
> Prove Jews didn't own most of the slaves.


	I'm sure some did. What about you linking some data? 


> Prove slavery isn't a semitic tradition.


	It is. Why would I want to prove that it isn't? Also, it's not
	just semitic....

> 
> Pro-tip:
> **You can't.**

	pro tip, I never ever said "slavey is not a semitic tradition".

	What I said is that the american slave society was founded by
	anglo-european-western pieces of shit. Which is a fact that
	prolly even american schoolboys know. 

	I of course can add that your fucking slave society honored
	both your WESTERN slave traditions and the JOO slave
	traditions. And the jew-kristian 'mixed' slave tradition that
	westerners love so much.


> 
> > national borders
> >
> 
> I never argued for "national" borders.

	You compared legitimate personal 'borders' or boundaries to the
	borders of nation states. False analogy. Then you added this
	piece of nonsense

	"These "imaginary" lines often exist in the form of rivers and
	oceans." 

	which both John N. and I refuted.

	So regardless of you admiting that you argued for national
	borders or not, all you said about them is wrong. 


> I tried to overstand your position on what defines a border and how
> these "imaginary" lines, physical or not, differ from those drawn in
> sovereignty of one's body ?
> 
> You offered nothing but "not valid".
> Just like your "bullshit" argument; why ?
> 
> > cheaters
> >
> 
> I do not cheat, sir.
> How dare you. =)