The Couch

sampling vs. piracy

Comments on sampling vs. piracy

smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#26 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/01/08 - 3:16 PM:

example: "One man with an axe is ridiculously un-mighty"

if one man with an axe defends his child against predation by another man, i'd say this is a valid and successful expression of the axe-holder’s 'might'

if a woman chops up her abusing husband with an ax, i'd say this is a valid and successful expression of 'might'

might: the individual's capacity to enact change...this can be the brute power of the physically superior man...the seductive allure of the temptress...the whisper of a compelling message into a significant ear...the vigorous application of reason...the subtle application of charisma...the overt application of the 'stick', the 'gun', the 'bomb', the clever use of the proxy 'might' of 'law', and on and on


And yet, all those things can be achieved easier by coöperation than through solo actions. You havn't refuted my point regarding might... smiling face
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#27 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/01/08 - 4:58 PM:

"You havn't refuted my point regarding might"

yes, smoke, i have

i've illustrated that 'might' (and its application) is not as narrowly defined as you think

i've cited two examples (rooted in your own "One man with an axe is ridiculously un-mighty") wherein you are dead wrong

and: in both the cases, i imagine, the direct and clear application of 'might' as i describe it, is the only solution to the problems at hand

or

should the man allow his child to be preyed upon while waiting for the police?

should the woman take one more beating as she waits for the police?

perhaps in belgium 'waiting for the cops' is acceptable...i'm sure for a great many here in america it 'is' acceptable

to me: not so much

so: yes, smoke, i did refute your point...i countered what i believe is a very narrow and error-ridden interpretation with my own


finally: that something 'can be achieved easier by coöperation than through solo actions' means what?

is this supposed to invalidate solo efforts?

because a task is difficult done solo, this obligates who to what?

your point escapes me... --henry
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#28 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/02/08 - 1:26 AM:

because a task is difficult done solo, this obligates who to what?


Obliges to nothing, but there is power in numbers and organisation, in practically every thinkable situation. Especially security issues like the examples you gave. smiling face

I'm simply saying that might and freedom are inversely related. There's no such thing as a free lunch. smiling face
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#29 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/02/08 - 7:20 PM:

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

(((agreed)))

(((how this is supposed to invalidate anything i've posted in this thread escapes me)))


might and freedom are inversely related

(((only if you insist on the definition for 'might makes right' you seem to want to force me to defend)))

(((i've defined 'might makes right' as i see it...obviously, our two interpretations differ...you're entitled to yours...i'll defend only mine)))

(((*shrug* --henry)))
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#30 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/03/08 - 8:11 AM:

Please explain how defending children or women is easier on your own.

Please explain why I am wrong to think that you defend the 'might makes right' principle which allows a stronger man to beat up his wife or rape a child.


"There's no such thing as a free lunch. "

There's a trade-off between power and freedom of movement. The more power one wants, the more one needs to invest, and the more one becomes a slave to one's hunger for power.

There's also a trade-off between might and the freedom you allow yourself and others. A strict set of rules and iron-hand organisation create might. Chaos gets nothing done.

There's also a trade-off between the power and freedom of one and the freedom of others. The rapist is stronger, but his belief in the free use of his might in the 'might makes right'-scheme, takes the freedom away from his victim.

Edited by smokinpristiformis on 07/03/08 - 8:20 AM
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/03/08 - 12:47 PM:

Please explain how defending children or women is easier on your own

(((i never said it was...if i did: please point to the post wherein i said this)))


Please explain why I am wrong to think that you defend the 'might makes right' principle which allows a stronger man to beat up his wife or rape a child.

(((ah...i think you need to read the whole thread again)))

(((if a strong man can apply his might to wife-beating, the woman who is the intended victim can apply her might in self-defense...the ax, in the hands of the woman, stops the abuser...the ax, in the hands of the father, stops the rapist)))

(((*sigh*)))


There's a trade-off between power and freedom of movement. The more power one wants, the more one needs to invest, and the more one becomes a slave to one's hunger for power.

(((if one interprets 'might makes right' as you do, then -- yes -- the above is true...if they interpret it as i do, then the above is false)))

(((*sigh*)))


There's also a trade-off between might and the freedom you allow yourself and others. A strict set of rules and iron-hand organisation create might. Chaos gets nothing done.

(((not applicable to 'my' position stated in this thread...i only argue for 'my' positions, remember?)))


There's also a trade-off between the power and freedom of one and the freedom of others. The rapist is stronger, but his belief in the free use of his might in the 'might makes right'-scheme, takes the freedom away from his victim.

(((you assume the victim is obligated to submit to the rapist (i don't)...you assume the rapist is stronger (i don't) )))

(((try again, smoke... --henry)))
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/03/08 - 1:58 PM:

smoki wrote:
Please explain why I am wrong to think that you defend the 'might makes right' principle which allows a stronger man to beat up his wife or rape a child.


henry wrote:
keep in mind "might makes right' is not an ethos (for me) but a simple observation of how the world works...this foundational principle obligates me to nothing...that is: 'might makes right' is just a tool among many...i use tools...i'm not ruled by them


henry wrote:
'might makes right' is -- for me -- not about having the most power...it's about self-possession, self-deliberation, and the application of 'might' (myself) to secure and defend these


henry wrote:
my use of my 'might' is for me to decide, as your 'might' is your concern


hi guys,

if i may interject, i think what henry is saying is that each individual uses whatever might he or she might have to exercise their will on the world. is that right henry? it is not a judgement on what kind of moral choices people should make in any given situation, but rather an observation that people will simply do as they please to whatever extent they can. that i would definitely agree with.

cheers,
smiling facelib

henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#33 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/03/08 - 2:07 PM:

again: might: the individual's capacity to enact change...this can be the brute power of the physically superior man...the seductive allure of the temptress...the whisper of a compelling message into a significant ear...the vigorous application of reason...the subtle application of charisma...the overt application of the 'stick', the 'gun', the 'bomb', the clever use of the proxy 'might' of 'law', and on and on

again: ''might' is as versatile as the individual who holds and exercises it'

'might makes right' can be about the overt acquiring of power, and the attendant shackles of that power, but it doesn't have to be

two examples...

*arguably one of the most powerful men on the planet is bill gates...he controls vast resources and his fingers are sunk deep into the economics of the world

it's also almost impossible for him to simply hop into his car and drive over to the neighborhood theatre to view a flick

his 'might', as you describe it, is -- to my mind -- more of an albatross 'round his neck

yes: gates is very powerful, but he's also very hobbled by the consequences of his power

*now: take henry quirk...anonymous...minimalistic...no debt and few possessions...henry goes where he likes, does as he likes, and -- even when he breaks the 'law' -- his essential 'invisibility' is his shield

sure henry can't hope a plane to europe on a whim, but then henry doesn't have to enlist the services of bodyguards when he does go to europe

by henry's interpretation his 'might' is much cleaner and much less consequence-ridden than gates's

gates has overt power but his self-possession is adulterated

henry has little overt power but his self-possession is intact

now, smoke, tell me i haven't just wasted your time and mine

tell me you understand... --henry

Edited by henry quirk on 07/03/08 - 2:54 PM. Reason: making it leaner, boss...
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/03/08 - 2:51 PM:

(((gold star for liberty!)))

(((i would, however, edit your synopsis slightly, like this...)))

the individual uses whatever 'might' he has to exercise his will (impress him 'self') on the world. 'might makes right' is not a judgment on the morality of a 'choice', but, instead, an observation the individual WILL choose' and WILL exercise 'might' to execute that choice

(((the rapist chooses to rape...his intended victim chooses to shoot the rapist with a shotgun)))

(((a hold up man chooses to rob an easy mark...the mark slides an extended pocket knife along the ribs of the hold up man)))

(((a girlfriend chooses to seduce a boyfriend...a boyfriend allows the seduction)))

(((a mother corrects her unruly son...the son -- exercising his 'might' -- pleads his case successfully with his father to escape punishment)))

(((henry successfully locates the sob who stole, and now profits from, his manuscript...if henry's 'might' wins out, then the sob lies dead in his office and henry -- if his 'might' wins out -- is never apprehended for the 'crime'...or...the sob wins out and henry is dead or arrested)))

(((the pope -- exercising his 'might' as pontiff -- issues an edict making it impermissible to <whatever>...catholics who submit can be said to have their own 'might' thwarted in favor of the church's...those who do not submit either, rebel quietly, not drawing attention to themselves, or, openly, risking excommunication)))

(((and on and on)))

(((there is not a single example of individuals interacting (socially, politically, theologically, sexually, etc.) wherein the foundation is not 'might makes right')))

(((altruism is as much a lie as 'collective'... --henry)))

Edited by henry quirk on 07/03/08 - 3:55 PM. Reason: detailing the point, boss...
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/03/08 - 3:33 PM:

another difference between the 'might' and the application of 'might' as outlined with bill gates and henry quirk is where the 'might' comes from

in the case of gates: his 'might' -- originally intrinsic to him 'self' -- as his power grew, became less integral to him 'self' and more of a borrowed thing

as gates moved from tech-head and inventor to social/technologic/cultural fixture, the 'might' he acquired and exercises is less 'his' and more what is lent him by consumers and 'law'

lent 'might' is slippery 'might'...it can be lost

in henry's case: his 'might' is entirely a function of 'him'...his will, his reason, his drive, his wiles, his energy, his body...his AGENCY

henry's 'might' can not be taken away or lost, only blunted from time to time

but as henry owns, possesses, him 'self' so does he own, possess his 'might...henry = agency = 'might'

the same cannot be said of gates, nor any other powerful figure, be he king or president or whatnot... --henry
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.