You Know You're An iNtuitive When... - Page 104

You Know You're An iNtuitive When...

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 104 of 259 FirstFirst ... 4 54 94 102 103 104 105 106 114 154 204 ... LastLast
Results 1,031 to 1,040 of 2581
Thank Tree10842Thanks

This is a discussion on You Know You're An iNtuitive When... within the Myers Briggs Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; You know you're an iN when a quick response turns into a lost hour of sleep and something to this ...

  1. #1031
    INTP - The Thinkers

    You know you're an iN when a quick response turns into a lost hour of sleep and something to this extent...

    Quote Originally Posted by gingertonic View Post
    This. So much. First of all, legally, it should not be considered piracy, the stealing of music, since I'm copying the file from many other people's computers that they're voluntarily sharing. Its unreal that we allowed it to be illegal. Also the record companies are assholes that tend to stifle creativity etc etc so I don't give 2 shits if they lose 10 bucks from me.
    It is copying a file, not stealing a material album, sure and maybe you are entitled to listen to it. But if you have a right to listen to and own music for free then a person who makes it has no right earn a living from making it. An artist can not then be an artist by trade and must take up a day job, making music on the side. That stifles creativity.

    Record companies existed and exist because poor guitar-playing song writers from Nebraska and junkie saxophone virtuosos in New York didn't have the means to record and distribute their art. So they get a contract and a Producer gives them thousands of dollars, and a bunch of engineers who worked their asses off to get degrees and get this job are hired to manage all the expensive equipment required to make the album. Then you've got a bunch more people who put bread on the table for their families in manufacturing and packaging. Then there are some guys with trucks who get up early and spend all day driving from the factory to the store. Then there's the record store owner- some nice, ambitious guy who worked his way from shit with the dream of owning a record store, and now he finally does. Then he probably has a few guys who help out around the store and there are millions of other stores around the country- around the world. Thousands of artists, producers, engineers, truck drivers, and so on--
    -- then you, me and a few million other arrogant bastards decide they're creativity-stifiling assholes and they don't deserve to be paid. So we get on piratebay, and mediafire and whatever. The record store closes down and the owner has to get a job at McDonalds, his wife leaves him and gets the kids and he drinks himself to death after Regions forecloses on his house. The engineers' vocational skills are outdated and so they head over to Wal-Mart and ultimately tens-of-thousands of hard working people are put out of work, many of whom aren't as lucky to spend the rest of their lives in a drive-thru window.

    Who gives two shits, they're creativity stifling bastards right?
    Obviously, I'm drawing on extremes here, but the fact is our actions have consequences and although its easier to assume "the record companies are assholes" in truth those companies are made up of thousands of individuals who can't pay their mortgages or their kid's college tuition because people like us decided to take their products for free rather than pay them for the hours/day/months they spent working on them. You can call that stealing, pirating or voluntary file sharing. It is what it is.

    Beyond that, what happens when they all go out of business? (assuming that happens) Will you suddenly say "Okay the assholes are gone, I'll pay for music now", or would you keep downloading it for free even when the artist is the producer is the engineer is the distributor? How can any artist afford to do that when their records don't generate any revenue? Before you download music, do you actually check and see what company made it or if it was released independently? or do you just assume they're assholes who don't deserve your money?
    Well that's my 2 shits.

    PS. You say they're creativity stifling assholes, but they allow people the tools to make and record music. They have to make it commercial because if they didn't it would flop and someone else would commercialize their music, out competing them, so they stifle creativity and make the artists appeal to popular tastes. If they didn't they would go out of business, and the music wouldn't be made in the first place. Is the producer to blame or the consumer? Or the system? It doesn't matter, because of you and me they're going out of business anyway.
    Cerebro thanked this post.

  2. #1032

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWithoutHats View Post
    You know you're an iN when a quick response turns into a lost hour of sleep and something to this extent...



    It is copying a file, not stealing a material album, sure and maybe you are entitled to listen to it. But if you have a right to listen to and own music for free then a person who makes it has no right earn a living from making it. An artist can not then be an artist by trade and must take up a day job, making music on the side. That stifles creativity.

    Record companies existed and exist because poor guitar-playing song writers from Nebraska and junkie saxophone virtuosos in New York didn't have the means to record and distribute their art. So they get a contract and a Producer gives them thousands of dollars, and a bunch of engineers who worked their asses off to get degrees and get this job are hired to manage all the expensive equipment required to make the album. Then you've got a bunch more people who put bread on the table for their families in manufacturing and packaging. Then there are some guys with trucks who get up early and spend all day driving from the factory to the store. Then there's the record store owner- some nice, ambitious guy who worked his way from shit with the dream of owning a record store, and now he finally does. Then he probably has a few guys who help out around the store and there are millions of other stores around the country- around the world. Thousands of artists, producers, engineers, truck drivers, and so on--
    -- then you, me and a few million other arrogant bastards decide they're creativity-stifiling assholes and they don't deserve to be paid. So we get on piratebay, and mediafire and whatever. The record store closes down and the owner has to get a job at McDonalds, his wife leaves him and gets the kids and he drinks himself to death after Regions forecloses on his house. The engineers' vocational skills are outdated and so they head over to Wal-Mart and ultimately tens-of-thousands of hard working people are put out of work, many of whom aren't as lucky to spend the rest of their lives in a drive-thru window.

    Who gives two shits, they're creativity stifling bastards right?
    Obviously, I'm drawing on extremes here, but the fact is our actions have consequences and although its easier to assume "the record companies are assholes" in truth those companies are made up of thousands of individuals who can't pay their mortgages or their kid's college tuition because people like us decided to take their products for free rather than pay them for the hours/day/months they spent working on them. You can call that stealing, pirating or voluntary file sharing. It is what it is.

    Beyond that, what happens when they all go out of business? (assuming that happens) Will you suddenly say "Okay the assholes are gone, I'll pay for music now", or would you keep downloading it for free even when the artist is the producer is the engineer is the distributor? How can any artist afford to do that when their records don't generate any revenue? Before you download music, do you actually check and see what company made it or if it was released independently? or do you just assume they're assholes who don't deserve your money?
    Well that's my 2 shits.

    PS. You say they're creativity stifling assholes, but they allow people the tools to make and record music. They have to make it commercial because if they didn't it would flop and someone else would commercialize their music, out competing them, so they stifle creativity and make the artists appeal to popular tastes. If they didn't they would go out of business, and the music wouldn't be made in the first place. Is the producer to blame or the consumer? Or the system? It doesn't matter, because of you and me they're going out of business anyway.
    This would be applicable if mainstream music was moving towards greater record company involvement, but the movement is away from record companies. Mainstream music is becoming independent music. Independent music is far more likely to be freely distributed.

    And yes, I do think everyone should have free access to all art. The internet age has made most of your argument irrelevant as the tools necessary to create music aren't held in monopoly by the record companies. You don't own your art, everyone does. I don't understand how people can claim ownership of art. Art is created for the enjoyment of others, how can you own that?

  3. #1033
    Unknown

    None of this iTunes garble has anything to do with being an intuitive by Jung's definition. When did we get off track?

    Let's get back on track.

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleptic View Post
    When someone says you're weird "even for you".

    When you think Sensors seem to be "missing" something, and the Sensors think you aren't all there.

    When you carry on a conversation with a Sensor and feel like your discussion is the appetizer and you're waiting to move on to the meat, and the Sensor thinks it is the meat and wants to backtrack to the appetizer.

    When you spend several moments walking around looking for something you've been carrying in your hand.

    When you've seen something every day, and only processed it days/months/years later.

    When you leave the card table for a minute, come back, play an entire round of the game, then have your roommates burst into laughter because you didn't notice your cards that had been sitting face-up on the table when you left were now facing the wrong direction, even despite having turned one of them around to read it!

    When "I'm bored" actually means "give me something to think about".

    When the real world bores you.

    When you can spend hours talking theory about something you'll never do.

    When you're attracted to people because you could spend a lifetime learning what's in their head. When you find men who are so lost in the caves of their mind that you have to take them by the hand and lead them gently into the light and say, "Okay, honey, the real world needs you just for a moment, and then you can go back to living in your head," adorable. When you want to crawl into these men's minds and stand at the edge and marvel in wonder at the world within, even if only for a moment. When you fall in love with an intellectual and want to cuddle his brain/mind.

    When books are your best friends.

    When you were a child, you'd ask your parents to read you that fairy tale one more time.

    When you think people much older than you are more interesting than "kids your own age", even once you're well into adulthood.

    When you're in third grade and your bus pulls up to the school, you wait patiently in your bus seat for the other kids to go by so you can get off in a more efficient manner, then start when the bus driver asks if you're going to go in, and you realize that you watched all the kids get off the bus and go inside the school, and didn't even notice because you were so lost in thought.

    When you think if you were normal, you would bore yourself to tears.

    When you watch Star Trek and Picard asks the Klingons what they want him to do with the dead Klingon's body and they say, "It is only an empty shell now. Please treat it as such," and you realize this is how you've always viewed funeral planning, because your body is merely that which houses your true self.
    Wasp, Cerebro and FigureSkater thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #1034
    INTP - The Thinkers

    Any surface can serve as a table, for you. You have no problem putting a glass of water on the floor or a bowl of soup on top of a hardbound book.

  6. #1035
    INTP - The Thinkers

    Quote Originally Posted by likeacat View Post
    Any surface can serve as a table, for you. You have no problem putting a glass of water on the floor or a bowl of soup on top of a hardbound book.
    I think that's a perceiving trait, but when you make a table, that's Intuitive.

  7. #1036
    INFJ - The Protectors

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWithoutHats View Post
    You know you're an iN when a quick response turns into a lost hour of sleep and something to this extent...



    It is copying a file, not stealing a material album, sure and maybe you are entitled to listen to it. But if you have a right to listen to and own music for free then a person who makes it has no right earn a living from making it. An artist can not then be an artist by trade and must take up a day job, making music on the side. That stifles creativity.

    Record companies existed and exist because poor guitar-playing song writers from Nebraska and junkie saxophone virtuosos in New York didn't have the means to record and distribute their art. So they get a contract and a Producer gives them thousands of dollars, and a bunch of engineers who worked their asses off to get degrees and get this job are hired to manage all the expensive equipment required to make the album. Then you've got a bunch more people who put bread on the table for their families in manufacturing and packaging. Then there are some guys with trucks who get up early and spend all day driving from the factory to the store. Then there's the record store owner- some nice, ambitious guy who worked his way from shit with the dream of owning a record store, and now he finally does. Then he probably has a few guys who help out around the store and there are millions of other stores around the country- around the world. Thousands of artists, producers, engineers, truck drivers, and so on--
    -- then you, me and a few million other arrogant bastards decide they're creativity-stifiling assholes and they don't deserve to be paid. So we get on piratebay, and mediafire and whatever. The record store closes down and the owner has to get a job at McDonalds, his wife leaves him and gets the kids and he drinks himself to death after Regions forecloses on his house. The engineers' vocational skills are outdated and so they head over to Wal-Mart and ultimately tens-of-thousands of hard working people are put out of work, many of whom aren't as lucky to spend the rest of their lives in a drive-thru window.

    Who gives two shits, they're creativity stifling bastards right?
    Obviously, I'm drawing on extremes here, but the fact is our actions have consequences and although its easier to assume "the record companies are assholes" in truth those companies are made up of thousands of individuals who can't pay their mortgages or their kid's college tuition because people like us decided to take their products for free rather than pay them for the hours/day/months they spent working on them. You can call that stealing, pirating or voluntary file sharing. It is what it is.

    Beyond that, what happens when they all go out of business? (assuming that happens) Will you suddenly say "Okay the assholes are gone, I'll pay for music now", or would you keep downloading it for free even when the artist is the producer is the engineer is the distributor? How can any artist afford to do that when their records don't generate any revenue? Before you download music, do you actually check and see what company made it or if it was released independently? or do you just assume they're assholes who don't deserve your money?
    Well that's my 2 shits.

    PS. You say they're creativity stifling assholes, but they allow people the tools to make and record music. They have to make it commercial because if they didn't it would flop and someone else would commercialize their music, out competing them, so they stifle creativity and make the artists appeal to popular tastes. If they didn't they would go out of business, and the music wouldn't be made in the first place. Is the producer to blame or the consumer? Or the system? It doesn't matter, because of you and me they're going out of business anyway.
    I know many musicians struggling to pay rent, and an old church friend almost lost his job at a record company because of poor sales. Pirating is just incredibly selfish, it's only helping yourself. Purchasing music gets you what you want, and also ensures everyone from the session musician to the executive to the janitor can put food on their family's tables. Downloading music for free (without the permission of the artist/label) is pure selfishness. And in this world, we don't need any more of it. No amount of rationalization can rid this situation of its detrimental effects on hardworking individuals.

    So all of what you said is all incredibly true. Nobody bothers to consider long-term consequences of their actions anymore, especially when they know it doesn't directly hurt themselves.
    If piracy continues, concert tickets will be OUTRAGEOUSLY priced (I didn't make this up, I was told of this current trend of concert ticket price increase by a record executive). People will no longer attend these concerts, and the artists will cease to make music. If art is to be kept alive, it must be supported.
    ManWithoutHats thanked this post.

  8. #1037
    INTP - The Thinkers

    Quote Originally Posted by gingertonic View Post
    This would be applicable if mainstream music was moving towards greater record company involvement, but the movement is away from record companies. Mainstream music is becoming independent music. Independent music is far more likely to be freely distributed.
    We are not talking about the legality of downloading freely distributed music: that is legal and irrelevant. We are talking about downloading music that an artist made to distribute in exchange for money. That is how they make a living. When a generation of 'consumers' decide they don't deserve money for it, they can no longer spend there time making music. They have to do something else like cooking hamburgers or moving boxes. That is the way Capitalism works and you may not like it, but you will not change it this way. You will only make the system that much worse.
    You say the movement is away from record companies and towards independence? (without a source but that's okay, I don't doubt it) Okay, so you are saying that you are not stealing from record companies- you are stealing directly from the artists. I don't see how this justifies anything, in fact, this seems to undermine you're own argument.
    They may be more likely to release it for free, but if they don't (and most don't) and you download it anyway, you are depriving them of the compensation they are asking for the music they made for you, with their own investments of time (it takes a long time to develop musical skills not to mention creating the music) and money (instruments, computers, microphones, editing programs are paid for out of the independent artists pocket).

    Quote Originally Posted by gingertonic View Post
    And yes, I do think everyone should have free access to all art.
    So do I. I also think that everyone should have access to free food. Nonetheless, I cannot justify taking food for free. Even if it was somehow shared over the internet, eating food that someone else made to earn a living would satisfy my hunger at the expense of farmers, packagers, retailers (from the C.E.O. of Kroger to the handicapped man who bags my groceries), etc. If these people aren't paid for they would stop making it because they cannot continue to afford their home, their land, their own food.

    I believe every individual human being has a right to all the culture and information of their world's past and present, but we do not live in a Marxist utopia and that is not realistic. Such a utopia is likely impossible anyway and so we must live according to the world we do live in. In this real world, people perform services and make things and in exchange they are given money for services and things that they would like. Artists are a part of this system and they, like you and I, also appreciate goods and services, not to mention the basic necessities of food and shelter. Are you telling me that artists should be condemned to be poor? Why is it so immoral that artists demand compensation for their work but not farmers?


    Quote Originally Posted by gingertonic View Post
    The internet age has made most of your argument irrelevant as the tools necessary to create music aren't held in monopoly by the record companies.
    Even if most of it is irrelevant, some of it isn't. Why did you so conveniently ignore the parts you thought were relevant? I think all of the following is relevant:
    Quote Originally Posted by ManWithoutHats
    "...if you have a right to listen to and own music for free then a person who makes it has no right earn a living from making it. An artist can not then be an artist by trade and must take up a day job, making music on the side. That stifles creativity."
    "...would you keep downloading it for free even when the artist is the producer is the engineer is the distributor? How can any artist afford to do that when their records don't generate any revenue? Before you download music, do you actually check and see what company made it or if it was released independently? or do you just assume they're assholes who don't deserve your money?"
    When we download music not intended to be free without paying (independent or not), artists and/or employees lose out. If there's anyone in the music industry who isn't impacted as much, its the CEOs who can sell their stocks and retire early. A 2007 analysis of the effects of file-sharing on the U.S. economy calculated the number of jobs lost as a consequence to be 71,060, with 26,860 potential music industry jobs thwarted and a related 44,200 potential jobs in other sectors (citation at the bottom). What if you had a friend who lost his job because people liked his work so much, they decided he didn't deserve to be paid for it? Remember, not all of these jobs are record company jobs; retailers, and digital recording engineers hired by independent artists too. beyond these numbers, how many of these employees then couldn't afford to pay their kids through college? How many lost their homes? Those who were lucky enough to get a job somewhere else might have done alright but if they have that job then someone else doesn't, and in the middle of a recession that is no trivial matter.

    In my opinion, the real irony is that these people didn't lose their jobs because no one wanted what they were making. (that would suck too but it happens all the time) They lost there jobs because people did want it. Supply and demand is thrown out in favor of the consumers' self indulgent amorality. Who decides if you deserve to be paid for your hard work?
    Quote Originally Posted by gingertonic View Post
    You don't own your art, everyone does. I don't understand how people can claim ownership of art. Art is created for the enjoyment of others, how can you own that?
    So anything made for the enjoyment of others can't be owned? So Disney World cannot be owned. I have the right to go and ride whichever ride I like without paying because it was made for the entertainment of others. It's ridiculous that they expect us to pay for that.I don't own the 2nd Season of Seinfeld.. everyone does? The French government doesn't own the Mona Lisa... everyone does? (or does that not count, since it wasn't made for the enjoyment of others) What about televisions, video games, swimming pools, children's toys, books, etc.? How can you own these things?
    You go to the store and you buy it with the money you made moving boxes of books or programming video games. By your reasoning here, you would not pay for these things if you could avoid it and that would be okay. Why should anyone pay you for what you do?

    Maybe our grand kids will live in a world where music and video games will be free to all but I think if we all just start taking things that we want to be free at the expense of the artist/artisan/producer/farmer, it's more likely they'll be living in a world with more laws, censorship, and fences if only because those are the only things that stop the majority from taking whatever they want at the expense of minorities, and unwittingly themselves.

    If you actually have a good reason why I'm wrong and why file-sharing is perfectly justifiable, that would be a load off my conscience and I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I think we both download music because we're greedy and selfish. If I'm wrong please tell me where my argument is flawed and if you think something is irrelevant, maybe you could actually explain why.

    citation of stats- http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail...the-us-economy
    Cerebro thanked this post.

  9. #1038

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWithoutHats View Post
    <snip>
    I appreciate the long and well-reasoned argument you make here and I wish my response was going to be similarly lengthy, but sadly my reasoning is rather simple.

    I'm glad we can at least come to an agreement that in an ideal world, currency wouldn't be required to acquire the basic necessities for survival (or anything, really. currency as a concept just seems like an invention to consolidate power away from actual workers and producers of goods). I'm sure my rather hasty response triggered your INTP "its wrong!" sense and I apologize for not giving you an adequate response (I was tired, lazy, etc)

    At the point that music isn't a physical commodity that is limited by the spacial requirements of physical reality, I don't buy the argument that an artist ought to be compensated for the initial creation of that music. So most of your argument, at least the way I see it, is irrelevant. The only cost related to creating the music is the initial cost of the recording. All that is lost after the initial recording is pure profit as there is no additional cost to create additional copies of the music, especially if it is in digital form. You don't own the sound waves that come out of my music-playing device as it reads the information from the storage device (headphones/iPod, stereo/CD, etc), so I don't feel any obligation to compensate you for my copy of that information.

    I will admit I do not have a solution for this:

    When we download music not intended to be free without paying (independent or not), artists and/or employees lose out. If there's anyone in the music industry who isn't impacted as much, its the CEOs who can sell their stocks and retire early. A 2007 analysis of the effects of file-sharing on the U.S. economy calculated the number of jobs lost as a consequence to be 71,060, with 26,860 potential music industry jobs thwarted and a related 44,200 potential jobs in other sectors (citation at the bottom). What if you had a friend who lost his job because people liked his work so much, they decided he didn't deserve to be paid for it? Remember, not all of these jobs are record company jobs; retailers, and digital recording engineers hired by independent artists too. beyond these numbers, how many of these employees then couldn't afford to pay their kids through college? How many lost their homes? Those who were lucky enough to get a job somewhere else might have done alright but if they have that job then someone else doesn't, and in the middle of a recession that is no trivial matter.
    My response is that first, I don't care what the results of them losing their job were. It's the same result as anyone else losing their job and is therefore nonunique. My dad lost 50% of his clients in 2008 because the market volatility scared them off and world governments did not act effectively to control the volatility and prevent millions of people from stopping doing business with banks. What about him? What about my college education? See? This argument holds no weight because it just highlights a specific cause and effect of capitalism: no job = no money.

    Secondly, on a topic that is substantive rather than theoretical, I don't buy the argument that anyone else other than the artist is necessary in the process of recording and distributing music. At the point where we see labels being started and run by artists, music being recorded, mixed, and distributed electronically by artists through outlets like iTunes, beatport, soundcloud, etc, all those other people that were traditionally involved in the music industry seem irrelevant. I get that many artists aren't master mixers or great recording engineers but when you have great music being made on laptops in hotel rooms and then released on soundcloud, the argument for the necessity of those positions seems weaker and weaker to me.

    I will gladly pay for concert tickets knowing full-well my "piracy" is increasing ticket pricing. The way I see it, an artist owns their performance. There is a limited amount of concert opportunities and a limited amount of time for each concert, so I can justify having to pay to see those performances.

    I hope I don't seem like I'm trying to take an easy way out of this argument. Music is unique in this way (I do think it makes sense at some level to have to pay to enjoy physical art since it isn't as permanent as music).

  10. #1039
    INTP - The Thinkers

    Quote Originally Posted by gingertonic View Post
    I appreciate the long and well-reasoned argument you make here and I wish my response was going to be similarly lengthy, but sadly my reasoning is rather simple.

    I'm glad we can at least come to an agreement that in an ideal world, currency wouldn't be required to acquire the basic necessities for survival (or anything, really. currency as a concept just seems like an invention to consolidate power away from actual workers and producers of goods). I'm sure my rather hasty response triggered your INTP "its wrong!" sense and I apologize for not giving you an adequate response (I was tired, lazy, etc)
    Hah short responses do tend to trigger my 'devil's advocate' reflex. I would love a utopia without currency but I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the way Marx seems to assume that human nature is to cooperate, if class distinctions are removed. If such a world is possible I think file-sharing is antagonistic because of the listener-artist relationship [the artist wants money, the listener takes it anyway]. I also feel that music like that of Rhianna and Lil' Wayne or any pop star is more of a product than art (Beethoven vs. The Beatles, Mingus vs. Britney Spears) but that would be a whole other tangent.
    Quote Originally Posted by gingertonic View Post
    <snip>
    I still don't understand where you derive the moral authority to declare what the artist deserves to be compensated for and it seems like you would be a biased party if such authority did rest with you. Beyond only the monetary costs of making music, the time required to create music can be very, very costly and not all artists can or will hold concerts. Also, concerts are much worse than buying music as far as who gets your money- the artist only gets a fraction of concert revenues where compared to if they independently release an album they are probably receiving all of the profits. I still have to wonder, if we are entitled to all art, are all artists condemned to be poor or should they be expected to get a day-job?

    As far as the employment thing, I know many people including my parents who were impacted very badly by the recession. Being a stuck up hyper-moralist INTP, I would like to believe that the government and banks are responsible but at the end of the day I think the blame falls on every individual American who bought a house they couldn't afford. The government and banks may have been accomplices, and it may be unfair that billionaires were bailed out and hard working people weren't, but it has become the norm to live above our means on credit and yet people are surprised when this artificial economy collapses on itself, and then they do it again. In a democracy, it's easy to attack the government for over spending but heaven forbid someone should criticize the people for spending money they don't have. People do this same thing with almost every problem the country faces. The U.S. is losing jobs to China, it must be the government and corporations (take some responsibility and boycott countries without labor regulations!), thousands are dying in the drug war in Mexico, if only the government would legalize pot (quit smoking pot! even if it should be legal, people are dying out of your pocket!) Wal-mart is destroying local business those corporate bastards (buy stuff from Tim's Goods instead!). I think the way democracies make blame so diluted and unclear may be the reason the system will ultimately fail, unless it is amended.

    I'm getting really carried away but the way I see it, if one person lost their job because I downloaded music for free, that is my fault and so are all the consequences. If someone else loses their job because of unfair circumstances, that doesn't justify another wrong. Even if there is an abstract sense of moral good that I can justify file-sharing by, the real and tangible consequence is poverty for a stranger. All abstractions aside the dilemma is this-
    Me paying for music vs. a strangers life being devastated
    I think the way every file-sharer decides this dilemma is proof that human nature would undermine a Marxist society. I've gotta go though

  11. #1040

    Quote Originally Posted by ManWithoutHats View Post
    Hah short responses do tend to trigger my 'devil's advocate' reflex. I would love a utopia without currency but I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the way Marx seems to assume that human nature is to cooperate, if class distinctions are removed. If such a world is possible I think file-sharing is antagonistic because of the listener-artist relationship [the artist wants money, the listener takes it anyway]. I also feel that music like that of Rhianna and Lil' Wayne or any pop star is more of a product than art (Beethoven vs. The Beatles, Mingus vs. Britney Spears) but that would be a whole other tangent.


    I still don't understand where you derive the moral authority to declare what the artist deserves to be compensated for and it seems like you would be a biased party if such authority did rest with you. Beyond only the monetary costs of making music, the time required to create music can be very, very costly and not all artists can or will hold concerts. Also, concerts are much worse than buying music as far as who gets your money- the artist only gets a fraction of concert revenues where compared to if they independently release an album they are probably receiving all of the profits. I still have to wonder, if we are entitled to all art, are all artists condemned to be poor or should they be expected to get a day-job?

    As far as the employment thing, I know many people including my parents who were impacted very badly by the recession. Being a stuck up hyper-moralist INTP, I would like to believe that the government and banks are responsible but at the end of the day I think the blame falls on every individual American who bought a house they couldn't afford. The government and banks may have been accomplices, and it may be unfair that billionaires were bailed out and hard working people weren't, but it has become the norm to live above our means on credit and yet people are surprised when this artificial economy collapses on itself, and then they do it again. In a democracy, it's easy to attack the government for over spending but heaven forbid someone should criticize the people for spending money they don't have. People do this same thing with almost every problem the country faces. The U.S. is losing jobs to China, it must be the government and corporations (take some responsibility and boycott countries without labor regulations!), thousands are dying in the drug war in Mexico, if only the government would legalize pot (quit smoking pot! even if it should be legal, people are dying out of your pocket!) Wal-mart is destroying local business those corporate bastards (buy stuff from Tim's Goods instead!). I think the way democracies make blame so diluted and unclear may be the reason the system will ultimately fail, unless it is amended.

    I'm getting really carried away but the way I see it, if one person lost their job because I downloaded music for free, that is my fault and so are all the consequences. If someone else loses their job because of unfair circumstances, that doesn't justify another wrong. Even if there is an abstract sense of moral good that I can justify file-sharing by, the real and tangible consequence is poverty for a stranger. All abstractions aside the dilemma is this-
    Me paying for music vs. a strangers life being devastated
    I think the way every file-sharer decides this dilemma is proof that human nature would undermine a Marxist society. I've gotta go though
    Nooooo!!!! We're not done yet!!

    I love that you describe yourself as "hyper-moralist" because I literally have no regard for morality (if you were to imagine the the rational brain and the conscience of an ENTP as two separate people, the rational brain can convince the conscience of anything and the conscience just stops arguing). In my world, 99.99999% of actions are permissible (this is excluding genocide, war crimes, human rights violations, and the pseudo-band One Direction), so sometimes I need someone to explain to me why my solutions are, in fact, terribly immoral.

    In regards to the employment issue, I wasn't trying to make the argument that the government/banks should have fixed the problem (far from it, they should be punished for creating the problem and then kicking the blame/solution back on the consumer). Obviously people shouldn't have <insert complete explanation for their involvement here> but people as a group are stupid and easily manipulated by an industry propped up by the government (i mean, come on! owning your own home is a "core american value" because of the mortgage subsidies and is unique to america! only 22% of people own their own home in switzerland!).

    I can see why you'd think I'm making morally authoritarian proclamations. They would make a lot more sense and would seem more reasoned and less "it should be this way because i think so" if I actually took the time to explain the philosophical backstory that accompanies them. I have a problem with offering solutions to a problem that fit within the status quo because the status quo is the underlying problem...

    Basically society ought to be reconstructed such that poverty is an impossibility.


     
Page 104 of 259 FirstFirst ... 4 54 94 102 103 104 105 106 114 154 204 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. iNtuitive and Sensing
    By Dr. Metallic in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 03-28-2016, 02:59 PM
  2. Non Intuitive- Intuitive
    By Alice in Wonderland in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-28-2016, 01:32 PM
  3. Intuitive Play
    By Deagalman in forum INTJ Forum - The Scientists
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-06-2009, 03:03 PM
  4. Intuitive or Not?
    By cafstoda in forum General Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 10:52 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:13 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0