> I don't really care about legal definitions

So I note. I don't wish to discuss anything further with you. You have neither the lucidity or intelligence for an academic discussion.

Please don't reply.

In reply to:

---

If you pay for something, and someone else uses it without your consent, then morally that's theft. I don't really care about what pedants claiming to be from the legal profession say to squirm their way out of it.

---

I know I'm going OT and apologise but... theft has to be a legal and not moral matter. I am a homeowner (freehold and all that) but who gave me the rights to my property? My guess is that those rights were initiated, a fair few hundred years ago, by some ugly but powerful MF "stealing" the land from the people who used it. Subsequently that land has been sold and pased down until I now "own" it.

Using your values (which seem toagree with the above), morally, I could invade next door, take their router and home and then rape their women without any guilty conscience and profit from my actions in the future. Or do you have no idea how your property rights were founded?

Sorry, a moral argument about "theft" is ridiclous when most of what we own has been stolen from others in the first place. Whilst I also think the law is an ass, it's the only thing that can define theft as, "morally", anyone who owns anything has blood on their hands by default.

As for using next door's network, I guess it depends on how much you like them

I don't agree, theft has always, and will always be a moral matter. The people who "stole" knew they were doing wrong. There are plenty of people today who steal and I suspect the vast majority know they are doing wrong. There are not that many amoral people about, I don't know any.

Not sure if its illegal but if your neighbour is on a monthly bandwidth allowance, how would you feel if you used the last of his alllowance & his isp started charging him for the extra useage? You would have 'stolen' his bandwidth for which he is being charged...

In reply to:

---

anyone who owns anything has blood on their hands by default

---

I seem to have strayed into nutter's corner ?

Hyperbole corner perhaps.

In reply to:

---

You have neither the lucidity or intelligence for an academic discussion.

---

Someone who feels the need to replace the letter "E" with a "3" wants to talk about intelligence and lucidity ?

Go take a hik3 !

Some people don't need a bill of rights to know what's wrong and what's right.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahxcjb/2539122451/ - someone should start acting their age !

Edited by deleted (Fri 27-Jun-08 15:05:43)

In reply to:

---

Sorry, a moral argument about "theft" is ridiclous when most of what we own has been stolen from others in the first place.

---

You speak for yourself. Everything I own has been worked for, and paid for !

I'm glad you noticed my rather extreme example was, mainly, hyperbole but I reckon the basis of my argument is sound.

If "the people who "stole" knew they were doing wrong" surely the following generations who benefit from that wrong will also recognise it as that, much like Australia has recognised what has been done to the Aboriginies? If that's the case surely all those moal people should right the wrong?

Wha's all this got to do with nicking nextdors network? I have no idea...

In reply to:

---

If that's the case surely all those moal people should right the wrong?

---

Well maybe you should stop exploiting poor Chinese people, and stop using your PC ?