Hicksey

I am curious to learn more about your perspective of the law vis-a-vis right and wrong. Please answer my follow-up question: If you do not get caught nor punished, why would that be? If I don't get caught it is because the authorities are either unaware of my transgression or not targetting me for investigation. I am not arguing against you doing it. I just think it is disingenous to run around doing something wrong and because you don't want to deal with the consequences tell everyone who will listen that it is the law that is wrong. I see the risk of being caught or prosecuted as negligible at best for either of us so long as we are end users and not distributors. So if you want to do it who am I to stop you? Just don't whine when you have to deal with the consequences. Sure I won't like it if I have to, but real men admit when they have done something wrong and bear the punishment with dignity. I'd rather get caught and pay for my mistake than to get caught making the argument this thread is. That's the great thing about a free country. You can do just about anything if you are willing to bear the consequences of doing it.

At last, an honest person. I use pirated music and movies. Unlike others, instead of searching for a way to justify it, I just acknowledge I am doing something wrong. I understand there is a calculated risk to doing so. When I calculate that the risk involved is higher than I am willing to endure I will stop. If I get caught and punished it will be because I have done something wrong, not because the law has victimized me.

Many people will obey the law but, at the same time, claim there is nothing wrong with the behavoir prohibited by the law. The question in this thread asked whether it is 'wrong' not whether people would actually use an illegal decoder box.My argument is that it is not just illegal but wrong and a violation of the rights of the signal broadcaster. I realize that. It was a follow up question to the assertion that illegality has no bearing on whether or not something is right or wrong. So if illegality isn't a factor, I asked what was. As to the issue at hand, I disagree. That signal is the property of the broadcaster and absent permission to use it, you are stealing from the broadcaster. I also believe that the CRTC should not bar us from paying for and using that service regardless of where it originates.

The laws are there to make order and to balance competing interests. The fact that some laws are based on right and wrong is incidental. If enough people want a law, we will write something down in our "law books" regardless of whether it is right or wrong. How else would you have it? What you are saying is that we should be able to selectively obey/disobey laws according to whether or not we can justify disobeying them to ourselves? And how does that create order again?

We do not have 'property rights', only enjoyment thereof. And those few property rights are not absolute. A satellite provider does not have to ask your permission to broadcast to your location. They ask the CRTC, and the CRTC either allows or denies them based on their application. Satellite signals are the property of the broadcaster. We are allowed to use them on conditions set by both the CRTC and the Satellite provider. The CRTC designates the requirements and restrictions of the equipment you may use and the satellite provider allows access for a fee.

Hijacking a thread??? I hate to draw your attention to THIS VERY thread but as of now, the results of this poll are: Is so-called 'signal piracy' wrong? Yes [ 2 ] [22.22%] No [ 5 ] [55.56%] My vast intellect perceives other choices than mere dichotomy [ 2 ] [22.22%] Total Votes: 9 That would make a democratic majority that does NOT "consider breaking the law to be wrong" in signal piracy. Therefore, what difference does my opinion make? If you want my answer, here it is: legality has nothing to do with whether it is morally wrong, in my opinion. Mock me all you want. You were the one who missed the point. I explained it in as simple of terms as I could and still you fixated on the question in that other thread. As to this thread, you missed the point yet again. I asked the questions above in a general sense. And like the other thread they remain unanswered. Here's another for you to ignore. If laws do not have anything to do with what is right and wrong and should have no bearing on one's behavior, then why have them?

Morally, in my opinion, YES, I consider you guilty. I would say YES again for practical purposes. The difference is that I do not think your "fraud" in the case of de-scrambling a radio signal is morally wrong even if today's law-books say it is a crime. When did the illegality of an act become insufficient to consider it wrong? I hate to highjack a thread, but I have a question: Do you consider breaking the law to be wrong?

If I supply you with a gun knowing you will use it in a crime, am I not as guilty as you are? Why would that not apply here. If I supply someone with information which enables them to commit fraud knowing that is exactly they will use it, am I not as guilty as them?

There are issues with where the water is being taken from. Dasani has caused water shortages in areas of India. And yes, the bottles are a huge problem. The manufacture requires oil, and also produces greenhouse gas which (as most of us know) causes global warming. The transport of bottled water also contributes to global warming. People should just drink the friggin' water from their tap, unless it's known to be harmful. The scare mongering over tap water is mostly conducted by bottled water companies or water filter companies. There was a water study I heard about in the city of Toronto where the water there was found to be some of best in the country. They also highlighted a study in which they claimed that bottled water was as bad for you as it is claimed to be good. Apparently the lack of fluoride (in some brands) in most brands the absolutle inferior amount it is causing a serious decline in the condition of the teeth of school aged children. Remember when we had to rinse with fluoride in school? Well, they put it in the water to eliminate the need, and now because nobody drinks the water the problems have resurfaced. I am looking for the study now. I heard about it on the Mark Elliot show on 1010AM (CFRB) radio in Toronto. EDIT Apparently the fluoride is as dangerous as anything. More to follow tomorrow.

This action follows the April 2002 Supreme Court Decision in Bell ExpressVu versus Richard Rex, which confirmed that Section 9(1)© of the Radiocommunication Act protects both Canadian and foreign signals from unauthorized decoding. Right or wrong -- it IS illegal. Not only are you barred from decoding the signals broadcasted throughout your neighborhood, but also from either owning/selling/posessing equipment either designed or modified to decode that signal. And if it did violate your rights to enjoyment of property, I highly doubt the SCOC would have ruled as it did. You may think you have made a valid argument, but apparently the SCOC disagrees. As I mentioned earlier, the constitutionality of that provision is doubtful if applied to private persons on their own property or in public space. The article you quoted goes on to indicate that enforcement activities are entirely directed at suppliers of pirating equipment, and not (yet at least) at the users of the equipment. It applies in so far as prohibition. There is no specific mention in either the statute or the decision whether it is targetted to a certain party. I take that as a blanket prohibition. It does say in the article that as of yet that only distributors/modifiers are currently being pursued for enforcement. I believe that may be only because of a lack of resources to do so, but that is speculation on my part. The reason I pointed that out is because what you have explained would be a rights infringement could not be. When considering such an appeal, isn't the SCOC required to not only consider the letter of the law and precedence, but also any possible violations of our rights in the bill of rights and our constitution? If the judgement would constitute an infringement of our rights to the enjoyment of property, would they not have to rule against it?

This action follows the April 2002 Supreme Court Decision in Bell ExpressVu versus Richard Rex, which confirmed that Section 9(1)© of the Radiocommunication Act protects both Canadian and foreign signals from unauthorized decoding. Right or wrong -- it IS illegal. Not only are you barred from decoding the signals broadcasted throughout your neighborhood, but also from either owning/selling/posessing equipment either designed or modified to decode that signal. And if it did violate your rights to enjoyment of property, I highly doubt the SCOC would have ruled as it did. You may think you have made a valid argument, but apparently the SCOC disagrees.

Not a bad idea. By the way, am I left or right, according to you? I'm not really concerned about that. I wasn't looking to label anyone. The point was to just discuss our beliefs. I've given up on that. Nobody can get past the question.

You do not know ALL of the pro-life people. I am anti-abortion even in the case of rape and incest and all other violations. I am also completely against the death penalty in all cases. Why? because, unlike all of the pro-life-exceptionists that you know, I truly do believe life is sacred. Period. Does that make me left or right? (I know, I know, I can hear it already.... that just means I am looney....) It helps to read a post before responding to it. Where did I claim to know all pro-life people? And for the record, us "pro-life-exceptionists" do value all life. We regret any loss, we just tolerate it in these two situations because we feel pity for the unwillingly afflicted. I prefer that no life be ended -- but if anyone must be aborted -- I would prefer to spare the child and abort the incestous parent or rapist.

What is a fetus if not a human? What is a fetus? Well, it's a .... FETUS, I suppose. Okay, if you like. And each stage is characterized by a physical reality with attendant social status -- personhood being confered at birth. So, if you cannot see it it does not exist? Now there's "rational grounds" if I have ever seen it. It don't merely refuse to acknowledge it -- I have rejected it on rational grounds. So there's absolutely nothing of value inside a mother other than her usual bodily organs during pregnancy? So if someone assaulted your pregnant wife and it resulted in a miscarriage or stillborn child, you would be angry at the assault but feel no loss otherwise? After all, there's not a human being in there.

Throw a fit? Who's throwing any fits? Not I, I assure you. It is not 'life' that is presenting the two options in this case, my friend. It is you, proposing two options which are flawed. You are not 'life', you are a discussion participant, and your propositions are subject to analysis and evaluation. Indeed? You might better have avoided the baseless and unproductive references to hypocrisy, then. That was not the problem with your question. The problems with your (loaded) questions have been explained already, above. Please refer. Apparently the concept has eluded you completely. All the things you have complained about were by design. You have also been made aware that the question itself and your answer to it weren't of consequence, which was also by design. Instead of sorting though the viewpoints and picking one so we can have a rational discussion, WHERE WE WOULD DISCUSS THE POINTS YOU HAVE MADE because we were here all along to discuss the basis/motivation for our answers, which you have already been made aware was designed to be biased by your personal opinion on the issues at hand. The whole point of this discussion was to discuss concepts instead of just taking turns regurgitating whatever Google can feed us on each others' viewpoints. You are doing so well you haven't made it past the question. At this point if you cannot comprehend how it would be that the question could be asked and answered, and the resulting discussion, I am wasting my time typing.

I'm sure you would. Probably to anyone who would listen, and even to those who couldn't care less. Where I come from, you don't spend time talking about and judging other people based on their personal, private business. As far as I am concerned, whether a person has cheated on a spouse or not goes to determining their character and how trustworthy they are. If I know that a person has cheated on a spouse, I would never bother dating them as I could never fully trust them. The question would always be there in the back of my mind. I refuse to live like that. I don't demand the knowledge of someone, but if it comes to light that someone does cheat, it does affect my opinion of that person. How many of your friends are known liars and cheats that continually break your trust? Do you keep those people close to you? What qualities do you value in a friend/partner? IMO, how trustworthy a person demonstrates himself to be is a direct reflection upon his character.

What is a fetus if not a human? Embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, adolescent, teenage, adult, elderly are all descriptions of humans at different stages of their growth cycle. Just because you refuse to acknowledge an embryo or fetus as a human being, doesn't make it so.

Your imputation of 'hypocrisy' is mistaken if you attempt to apply it to persons opposed to the death penalty and in favor of abortion choice. Your mistake lies in incorrectly equating fetal life with human life. I am pro-life. The whole basis for the pro-life movement is that a fetus is a life just the same from conception and every bit as worthy of saving as the person you look at in the mirror every morning. You may not believe that, but that does not mean others do not. You may think believe that is incorrect, but again others do not. I am aware of all of that. It's not a subjective comment. I am attacking your position with a logical comment. Your proposition was illogical because you built your questionable assumptions into it. I read and my comment stands. The two oppositions you set are inapt. On the "Life" side, its moral equivalence of all life requires it to answer to the apparent dissonance between 'life' and capital punishment or be hypocritical. The same is not true of your-so-equitably-named "Death" side where the perception of a distinction between human and fetus means that there is no dissonance between defending one and not the other, and hence no hypocrisy arises on the "Death" side. I have a question for you figleaf: in life has every problem you ever faced presented two options you were perfectly comfortable with? When they didn't did you throw a fit? I am starting to regret ever thinking people could open their minds and think outside the box. I knew that nobody believed part-and-parcel to the concepts. The whole point was to examine your beliefs and then answer the question based on them. It would be when we discussed our motivations for answering as we did that all our different nuances would come to light. I am amazed that so many people cannot deal with a question unless it begs an answer they have at the ready. Apparently by asking people to consider their beliefs and then answer anyway so we could discuss why we chose as we did is like asking if I could put a bullet in a person's head.

I have no respect for a person that makes sweeping generalizations about people while sticking their nose into business that isn't their own. What's your problem? We are having a discussion about Tie and Belinda's escapade which according to his ex-wife and a witness includes infidelity. I posted my opinion on infidelity and you accuse me of making a sweeping generalization? I am at a loss to understand how my opinion on cheating is a sweeping generalization. Where I come from if you no longer want to be with your spouse you get divorced and go looking for a new one. Cheating is for losers IMO. If you can't keep your word to your own spouse how trustworthy can you be? Tie and Belinda are just the example at hand. I'd make the same statement about two nobodys who cheated.

And do you believe that David Emerson also did the same thing politically? Harper could have really started the ball rolling if he introduced legislation banning MPs crossing the floor (as the NDP proposed and even mentioned during the Leadership debates during the last election,) and betraying the constitutents that voted them in. If these MPs wanted in with another party, then they would have to resign and run again in a byelection or general election (if it was close enough.) Most people say that Stronach crossing over to the Liberals and Emerson to the Conservatives was wrong, yet nothing has been done to prevent it happening again in the future. If Harper and the Conservatives were serious about cleaning up parliament, this would have been huge step in the right direction. I went on record calling Emerson every bit the whore as I did Stronach less than an hour after he crossed the floor. I haven't changed my mind.

Your imputation of 'hypocrisy' is mistaken if you attempt to apply it to persons opposed to the death penalty and in favor of abortion choice. Your mistake lies in incorrectly equating fetal life with human life. I am pro-life. The whole basis for the pro-life movement is that a fetus is a life just the same from conception and every bit as worthy of saving as the person you look at in the mirror every morning. You may not believe that, but that does not mean others do not. You may think believe that is incorrect, but again others do not. Please do not attack my question with a subjective comment like that. The accuracy of your assertion is subject to one's beliefs. Try reading the whole thread and understanding the how and why of the question asked.

Do you think the choice you made would bet a net gain or loss to society as a whole? After all, there would be considerable uproar if abortion on demand were abolished.

I think the two deserve each other. I have no respect for a person that cheats on their spouse. It only proves that their word means nothing. If you want out, end it with integrity -- and then move on. Stronach pulled the same thing politically. I don't see them lasting. As soon as it is expedient, or another better (at least it will seem so at the time) opppotunity presents itself one will leave the other as they have in the past. IMO once a person cheats once they sell out their credibility and are no longer to be trusted.

Why? If I ask YOU to choose between: 1) standing on one foot and balancing a pink elephant while having an abortion 2) doing backwards somersaults and serving fruit punch while at the gallows What would YOU pick? Why? The whole point of starting from the end of the debate and moving in a new direction was to learn a little about how each of the different viewpoints think. I have been through the debate enough times I know what the answer to each point I make will be. I've been through it enough times that I am starting to see repeat quotes of sources. I thought that forcing people to look at the issues through a different looking glass would be interesting. Ultimately the debate usually ends as an adolescent bickering over the validity of each others' sources with accusations of hypocrisy being thrown about and a bunch of points being made by Google instead of people putting their minds to work on the issue. So I devised what I thought would remove the bickering over sources because I would be asking people to think conceptually instead of practically. I also attempted to remove the bickering over sources by asking people to consider what they believe and consider to be true. I thought the added advantage to such a request would be a multitude of different opinions because everyone has different ideas of what nuances of each issue they think would make each acceptable. Lastly I thought that asking people to look within to answer would achieve two things: eliminate the ability of Google to answer for people and force people to think in terms of a hierarchy of their beliefs (or if you wish prioritize them). But because people around here seem to have minds closed to debate in terms other than those they are used to, only one person has even attempted to answer the question. I don't know whether people are intimidated by the question or just refuse to discuss issues in a forum where there is really no right or wrong. Perhaps people come here only to win debates, and in doing so validate what they believe to be. As far as I am concerned, any debate -- won or lost (though in debate and getting informed I believe there are no losers) -- is about what each side believes. Even sources are to be questioned. IMO nobody wins or loses. If everything thrown about by either side in the midst of debate were more than just beliefs there would be no debate. If one side was 'right' there would be no reason to debate. This place is a journey to knowledge and a great opportunity to understand why others believe as they do. The whole point of this thread was to take a different, off the wall, look at abortion and the death penalty. Since whenever we debate one of these issues the other seems to be invariably dragged in the back door I decided to take the two issues and force people to think differently about each. I wanted people to ask themselves questions like: Am I willing to tolerate X to get Y? Is X so distasteful that I am willing to give up Y to prevent it? Which of my views on the two issues means the most to me? Why? What are the benefits/costs of each of the two choices presented to society? I could have added little caveats and nuances to each of the two issues instead of asking black and white, but that would have made it easy. By dealing with ideas not watered down by compromise I force people to make hard decisions.

The choices I gave were pragmatic on purpose. I was counting on you having those views. It makes answering the question much more difficult. It forces you to not only look within, but think outside the box. You have to think in terms we do not ordinarily think of when talking about these issues. I was looking for a way of presenting the issues at hand without leaving a chance for people to run to Google to get their answer. You are not being locked into a label. There is no right answer. The journey is all that matters.