aurum

I've already explained my position. And I'm not going to engage in condescension.

Words and definitions are constructions. I will use them how I see fit. The point of the word 'functionally' was to avoid getting stuck in some narrow, dictionary definition of theft. What matters from a sense-making perspective is the principle and the psychology. Focusing on whether it fits some strict legal definition misses the point. And it's bad epistemology.

“Eat real foods” they say, while holding up pictures of bananas. This whole processed vs real debate is missing the point.

Justification. Yes, you torrent because you are desperate like a Venezuelan. That's my point. You can morally justify it if you want. Theft can be morally justified. It's still theft. And the vast majority of people who torrent are not even Venezuelans, they are mostly first-world people.

Consider that if you were financially well-off, you would not torrent. What does that say about your motivations?

Of course you are. The creator is not being rewarded when they should be. And you still use their creation for your benefit. I chose to call that "theft". Split hairs about it if you want. It's the same impulse to take while not giving anything in return. You fundamentally want free value, which is why you torrent.

Your definition of "theft" is not objective or the only one that can be used. I include copywrite infringement when I say "theft".

You can justify it however you want, but it's functionally theft. I stopped torrenting years ago. It's desperate, leech behavior.

Based on my understanding of survival and developmental constraints. It also matters how broad of a definition you are using for "violence". Is a hostile takeover of a corporation violence? Are lawsuits violence? What about exploitive marketing? Drone warfare?

No. That’s being way too optimistic on new tech.

Very good! Great find.

Survival determines what is considered good or bad. If it reduces survival externalities, it's likely more "good" than "bad". But of course this will still be relative and subject to developmental limitations. I think that conflict and competition are inevitable features of survival. My guess is we will never evolve beyond all forms of physical violence entirely. But we can reduce it over a long time. No, I am acknowledging that developmental constraints exist. Developmental constraints are tragic. The challenge from a higher place is learning to accept them.

It’s absolutely stage-specific. Be mindful of projecting what you feel is “basic dignity”.

Indeed.

Saying "everything revolves around you" is a meta-perspective. You imagine that some things revolve around your personal character and others don't. But it all serves a function for you either way. This is your game.

That would be sayin incorrectly.

Actually he is correct. From the highest perspective, this is ultimately all about You.

They can choose something else, but that just means they are self-deceived. God is irrelevant to your beliefs.

The highest achievement must inevitably be God. What other answer could possibly be higher?

That's not a clean distinction. You're terrified of being crazy.

Same thing. The point is, you're not ready to understand God. So of course no one teaches it.

No one teaches solipsism cause it's way too heavy. You ain't ready for solipsism.

There's little information here other than that you talk on the phone and she has been nice to you in the past. I'd say don't waste your time speculating. Ask her out and you'll know.

Mamdani is not Yellow. He's pretty solid Green.

Humanity never evolved beyond "might makes right".