Carson
@charter.com | reply to Asmodeus
Re: Wow
Wow!! Well said |
|
ooarashi
@ameritech.net | reply to Asmodeus
You watch too much Law & Order. |
|
BIGPZ
@verio.net
| reply to loincloth
said by loincloth  :If a left-handed person cuts off the left hand of another left-handed person (wrong #1), and the victim reciprocates (wrong #2), then two wrongs makes two righties! LOL. I would say that Right or Wrong acts have there own merit. But you have to ask yourself, do you want to reward wrong with wrong and potentially make things worse? |
|
loincloth
join:2001-03-29
Danville, CA
| reply to Qumahlin
said by Qumahlin :If you cut my hand off I don't get to cut your hand off, it doesn't work that way. Hence "two wrongs don't make a right"...in some countries the statement is untrue because they actually do see two wrongs being fair...you cut off my hand, I cut off your hand and everyone in happy. If a left-handed person cuts off the left hand of another left-handed person (wrong #1), and the victim reciprocates (wrong #2), then two wrongs makes two righties! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Ahrenl
First, you are deliberately confusing "discovery" (a court process) and "investigatory" (a pre-court process.) Anyone is entitled to "investigate" believed thefts without going to court first. If you run a business and you think someone is stealing from you, you may, for example, install video cameras or ask around about who is selling your stuff before ever considering court.
Second, the court system encourages pre-litigation settlement of claims. The court system recognizes it is a very expensive process and people would like to avoid it. Certainly, no person has an obligation to settle pre-court, but they may save money and legal expenses by doing so. They are also free to pass on such a settlement. No private party is under an obligation here to tell you to hire a lawyer.
You may not like the current laws enforcing copyrights (and I don't in some ways, either) but let's cool the rhetoric just a bit. The xyAAs have offered a settlement process. You are free to decline it. It's a CHOICE. Why deprive someone of a CHOICE?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| reply to Ritalin
said by Ritalin :
I was just going to giggle over the silly little quibble you have made over wordage. However after you posted this shining turd of a rebuttal I could not help but respond.
I hate seeing people argue over a phrase, its pointless and redundant, this case especially. The simple fact that I could debate what is a right and what is a wrong until you are ready to beat me with the closest blunt object validates this; would that be right or wrong?
You may be able to wonder around in circles with your argument to lose some people Asmodeus1, but to those that are paying attention you just sound like the kid that thinks he's smart after watching a few too many episodes of 'Law and Order'.
Stick to topic!!!
i just don't like the phrase because it is ultimately meaningless in the realm of law and just about everywhere else... but hey, you are entitled to your opinion about who you think i am... you couldn't be more wrong however, but you know what they say about orifices and opinions, right...? and i've never seen a single episode of law and order either nor survivor for that matter... oh well, i guess when you quip as an unregistered user you can say silly things on the internet as well... |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to calvoiper
There are two issues with it:
First, is the discovery/investigatory process being executed without a court warrant. I believe there is some law that they bought, that's never been tested in a courtroom mind you, that is protecting them there.
Secondly, there is the disinvolvment of the legal system in its entirety, and the fact that they're essentially offering you legal advice from an non bar-holding representative. Now I haven't seen the site, but if it doesn't make it abundantly clear that you should have your legal counsel going through the process for/with you, then it's clearly predatory.. |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | reply to JimmyDabomb
Well, I tried to follow all the logic involved in this thread but got run over at the next Zebra crossing. |
|
Ritalin
@usf.edu
|  reply to Asmodeus
I was just going to giggle over the silly little quibble you have made over wordage. However after you posted this shining turd of a rebuttal I could not help but respond.
I hate seeing people argue over a phrase, its pointless and redundant, this case especially. The simple fact that I could debate what is a right and what is a wrong until you are ready to beat me with the closest blunt object validates this; would that be right or wrong?
You may be able to wonder around in circles with your argument to lose some people Asmodeus1, but to those that are paying attention you just sound like the kid that thinks he's smart after watching a few too many episodes of 'Law and Order'.
Stick to topic!!!
|
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to Asmodeus
I dunno, I agree completely that the saying "two wrongs..." is frivolous nonsense. What's RIGHT and what's WRONG varies from one person to another and despite the delusional beliefs of many folks these values are not a chisled-in-stone and measurable constant outside of any self-referential belief system.
Let's say someone punches me over a misunderstanding but then steps back and doesn't try and escalate the violence beyond that one punch. That's one wrong act. Still, I feel wronged so I stand up and punch him back. That makes two wrong acts because neither action in any way addresses the misunderstanding that perpetuated the reduction to violence. AND YET...I'll feel pretty goddamned good after popping the bastard in the mouth after he hit me. So yeah, it WILL make it right in my book: you hit me and I hit you. We've hit a moral balance (in my head and in that situation).
If we want to take it even further, most of the legal system is based upon the idea that--from a situational standpoint--two wrongs most certainly make a right. If I rape your wife, I've committed a wrong towards her. If the state arrests me and puts me in jail, they've committed a wrong towards me (as far as I'm concerned. I certainly wouldn't choose to surrender my freedom voluntarily). Once my sentence has been served I'm released and having paid my debt to society (but surprisingly NOT to my victim as it's impossible to unrape her), all is forgiven and we're back to square one.
In other words, I hurt someone so the state hurts me back in order to teach me a lesson. The state KNOWS that their actions will cause me to suffer or they wouldn't be doing it. I'm being punished, remember? Knowingly causing someone to suffer is a wrong act, so by extraction, the legal system is the embodiment of two wrongs DO make a right.
I don't even want to go into capital punishment and how the state feels that killing one person will somehow magically fix things. Hmmm...the victims were still dead last time I checked...
And no, I'm not indicting the legal system and calling for its disassembly. What I AM saying is that the phrase in question is pointless, absurd and proven wrong constantly. THAT'S the subject I'm rambling about, so let's keep the flames to that subject and that alone, shall we? 
Okay, let the flaming begin...*grin* |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Asmodeus
OK, so we need more careful controls on who can sue who for what? I agree.
We should adopt the legal system in use in the rest of the world except for the US--loser pays all attorney fees. That would mean the xyAAs would have to pay all attorney fees when they sue someone who wasn't illegally downloading.
Of course, that would mean that people who have been illegally downloading would pay the xyAA's legal fees as well.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to russotto
Actually, barratry involves causing someone else to sue when you have no direct stake in the matter. When you sue on your own behalf or on behalf of those you legally represent, it's not barratry.
If the xyAAs are filing false lawsuits, they can be held to answer in court. If they are only offering to settle in advance of suing, they are only offering an option, which anyone is free to decline.
I am amused by the fact that people apparently want to reduce the options available to folks facing xyAA lawsuits.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to elwoodblues
Whether or not they have a right to come after you for downloading depends on the facts. They certainly have the right to offer you a pre-litigation settlement, which you certainly don't have to accept.
Saying they should be prohibited from offering you a settlement only reduces your own options. Why would you want to reduce options available?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
JimmyDabomb
@qwest.net
| reply to tbaker397
I don't know about Berlin PA, but when I lived in Pittsburgh, 3 lefts almost never made a right. Sometimes 3 lefts were necessary to go straight. Or go left, even. Damn curvy roads.
|
|
elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :said by djtim21 :...Somehow this isn't legal, but yet the *IAA's get away with it. ...and here I thought the downloading without royalty payment part was the illegal stuff.... calvoiper It's not a matter of legal or Illegal. There are many cases of false accusations, going after dead people etc.
The bottom line, is you are entitled to your day in court and the RIAA has no right to come after you and offer a pre-decision settlement. |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine :said by Asmodeus :a man kills a pregnant woman in a dui manslaughter case... one wrong act... the man is prosecuted (one right act) and found not guilty (one wrong act) and as he leaves court, the husband shoots him dead in an act of revenge (one right and one wrong act) and then he either kills himself afterwards (one wrong act) or is prosecuted (one right act) and found guilty (one right act and one wrong act)... so how many wrongs did it take to try and make something right...? how many wrongs had to occur for the right thing to happen...? see the pointlessness of trying to keep track of one set of behaviors to try and counteract another set... it's meaningless... the two wrongs don't make a right principle is a moralistic falsehood is just that... a falsehood... Actually, that example can be used to prove that two wrongs don't make a right. The husband who shot the DUI driver for killing his wife was committing a wrong act in order to "make right" another wrong act. However, what actually happened was another series of wrong acts (the DUI driver dying due to revenge, the husband ruining the rest of his life, etc.). Nothing was "made right" in the end. No amounts of wrong acts that the husband took would ever make everything right again. Thus two wrongs didn't make a right. (And neither would three, or four, or five, etc.) Not to go off on a tangent, but Qumahlin was right when he noted that some countries do see two wrongs being fair. A lot of the violence in the Middle East seems to be of the "they killed someone on my side so we must kill someone on their side to make it even again" kind. The problem with that is that the side who has sustained the most recent loss will always see themselves as behind and will attempt to even the score. This will result in their target's group becoming "behind in the score" and will result in another attack. Rinse, repeat, and run around in circles for a few hundred years. yeah, i suppose it could go either way... at least in my mind it is more of a philosophical case of simply dealing with reality regardless of the morality of the action... |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Asmodeus
said by Asmodeus :a man kills a pregnant woman in a dui manslaughter case... one wrong act... the man is prosecuted (one right act) and found not guilty (one wrong act) and as he leaves court, the husband shoots him dead in an act of revenge (one right and one wrong act) and then he either kills himself afterwards (one wrong act) or is prosecuted (one right act) and found guilty (one right act and one wrong act)... so how many wrongs did it take to try and make something right...? how many wrongs had to occur for the right thing to happen...? see the pointlessness of trying to keep track of one set of behaviors to try and counteract another set... it's meaningless... the two wrongs don't make a right principle is a moralistic falsehood is just that... a falsehood... Actually, that example can be used to prove that two wrongs don't make a right. The husband who shot the DUI driver for killing his wife was committing a wrong act in order to "make right" another wrong act. However, what actually happened was another series of wrong acts (the DUI driver dying due to revenge, the husband ruining the rest of his life, etc.). Nothing was "made right" in the end. No amounts of wrong acts that the husband took would ever make everything right again. Thus two wrongs didn't make a right. (And neither would three, or four, or five, etc.)
Not to go off on a tangent, but Qumahlin was right when he noted that some countries do see two wrongs being fair. A lot of the violence in the Middle East seems to be of the "they killed someone on my side so we must kill someone on their side to make it even again" kind. The problem with that is that the side who has sustained the most recent loss will always see themselves as behind and will attempt to even the score. This will result in their target's group becoming "behind in the score" and will result in another attack. Rinse, repeat, and run around in circles for a few hundred years. |
|
tbaker397
join:2004-07-19
Berlin, PA | reply to thephantom
exactly what i was thinking... you want to make a right, but can only turn left, so you drive up a street, make 3 WRONG turns and you end up going the RIGHT way... easy enough... |
|
thephantom
join:2001-04-24
Alamo, CA
| reply to Asmodeus
said by Asmodeus :how about 4 rights making a wrong... how about 3 wrong making 2 rights...? no no no...
3 rights make a left (at least in your car) |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| reply to Asmodeus
said by Asmodeus :really...? a man kills a pregnant woman in a dui manslaughter case... one wrong act... the man is prosecuted (one right act) and found not guilty (one wrong act) and as he leaves court, the husband shoots him dead in an act of revenge (one right and one wrong act) and then he either kills himself afterwards (one wrong act) or is prosecuted (one right act) and found guilty (one right act and one wrong act)... so how many wrongs did it take to try and make something right...? how many wrongs had to occur for the right thing to happen...? see the pointlessness of trying to keep track of one set of behaviors to try and counteract another set... it's meaningless... the two wrongs don't make a right principle is a moralistic falsehood is just that... a falsehood... That example is way off the deep end. The saying means "a wrong action is not an excuse for another, subsequent wrong action". We're not talking arithmetic - "wrongs" and "rights" don't add together. What we're talking about is the causal relationship between two immoral acts. The saying is valid. |
|
