Are conspiracy kooks hurting the liberty movement?

[Jim Johnson]

No, if a violent act is not a physical action then words have no meaning.

Violence does not require physical action.  Physical action may be violent, but actions other than physical may also be violent.

What you're suggesting is that most violations of others' rights are not actually wrongful.  If someone says, "do this or I'll hurt you" or, "stop doing that or I'll hurt you," and you have to modify your behavior to avoid him hurting you, that does not absolve him of responsibility.  He has engaged in violence against you as soon as he made a credible threat.

If not, you're left with a situation like this:

"So, then you raped her?"
"No, she consented to have sex with me."
"Why?"
"Well, I told her that if she didn't, I would stab her to death, but since I didn't actually do so, I did not actually engage in any violence, so it was consensual."

Or, for that matter, take it up a notch and consider those who commit crimes against humanity.  How many of those monsters (Bush, Obama, Hitler, etc.) actually pulled the trigger, even once?  They merely spoke or wrote words.  Are they absolved of all responsibility?  Or are they responsible, because words can be violent?

Credible threats are acts of violence.

That's confused.

Your equating some internet troll, who has no other probable means of contact with you, with immediate and probable danger.

[MaineShark]

That's confused.

Your equating some internet troll, who has no other probable means of contact with you, with immediate and probable danger.

That troll is threatening YouTube, and if he were the legal owner of a copyright, which was being used illegally by someone else via YouTube's servers, and YouTube did not promptly take down the video, a simple phone call would bring immediate action against YouTube.

The threat is quite imminent.

[dalebert]

I feel like it's beside the most important point. When someone is trying to silence someone else rather than debate them, they know they're losing. That's true regardless of whether there's violence involved or not.

But while we're talking about the YouTubes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CIXx9yP_Bw

[MaineShark]

I feel like it's beside the most important point. When someone is trying to silence someone else rather than debate them, they know they're losing. That's true regardless of whether there's violence involved or not.

Sorry for the diversion.  You're quite right - the issue is that those who are claiming to want open and honest debate are, in actual reality, wedded to a particular story, and perfectly willing to do whatever they can to silence those who actually want open and honest debate.

The technique used is nowhere near as important as the hypocrisy they are demonstrating.

[dalebert]

In the interest of full disclosure, I haven't read this yet. I'm dead tired and about to go to bed. But it seemed relevant.

http://torrentfreak.com/time-to-punish-dmca-takedown-abusers-wordpress-owners-say-140313/

[Jim Johnson]

If they made a law against claiming that you had copy rights, while being just a little needle dick loser, that would be all right by me.  But they always change the wording of a law before it gets to a final vote.

[Tom Sawyer]

Instead of a law, I would prefer YouTube make it part of their terms of use and it would jeopardize the account of the abuser.

[dalebert]

Instead of a law, I would prefer YouTube make it part of their terms of use and it would jeopardize the account of the abuser.

It's so easy to make a throwaway account though. I imagine that's what they do.

I finally read the article. I'm always leery of solving a problem with new laws. I think these are problems inherent with the idea of copyright laws in the first place. Any use should be fair use as far as I'm concerned.

[blackie]

It's snowing this morning.  Fucking government!!

Zionist Occupation Government!

[dalebert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hgYSo0uZ2A

[dalebert]

I'm now part of the occult for suggesting that men and women no longer need to conform to caveman notions of gender roles in modern society. I think I'm also woefully ignorant of the dimensions beyond four. What's that Internet rule that says it begins to be impossible to tell whether something is a joke or a parody or if people really are that crazy?

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=27556.msg293267#msg293267

These guys may very well be trolls and/or sock puppets. (Maybe it's just the one guy)

And this guy thinks I'm a Masonic troll. Something to do with Free Masons I guess. *shrug*

[Jim Johnson]

What's that Internet rule that says it begins to be impossible to tell whether something is a joke or a parody or if people really are that crazy?

Why would you need to delineate between the three of them?

I was instructed to decipher what was written, not what was meant to be written.

[dalebert]

If I'm a Free Mason, I want a luxurious underground tunnel to drive past all the traffic like in the Simpsons!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcV-SC6ha2I

[Jim Johnson]

I think Homer ruined that... in the same episode.

[Tom Sawyer]

What's that Internet rule that says it begins to be impossible to tell whether something is a joke or a parody or if people really are that crazy?

Why would you need to delineate between the three of them?

I was instructed to decipher what was written, not what was meant to be written.

Really it's differentiating between two states... joke or parody (funny, clever I'd hangout with them)     really that crazy (freaky, deluded, not gonna hangout with them)