Why using Scribe and Piracy is wrong.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**RustyKnight**

Steelmage99 wrote:That I do. Doing something illegal is most certainly wrong. The history-pages might justify your actions afterwards, but make no mistake, it is still wrong.

You honestly think the underground railroad (illegal clandestine network of people who helped transport escaped slaves into northern states and Canada during the 1800's) was morally wrong to help slaves escape?

Steelmage99 wrote:Keep in mind that there was only one Gandhi and one MLK, but there are thousands who (for various reasons) chooses to ignore the law and those people aren't noble or fighting for their freedom or anything like that.....they are simply criminals.

So the law can never be wrong? Sharia law is morally okay because it is the law?

**Mahtamori**

Steelmage99, since you are Swedish, I strongly suggest you study Ådalshändelsen (1931). Might put some perspective into your lawful way of thinking (D&D reference)

Whether the issue at hand is legal or not is not really open for discussion (it's not legal).
Whether it's theft or not is not open for discussion, either (courts in several countries have ruled it is not).
Whether it is right or wrong IS open for discussion in all democratic countries (it's sort of one of the things that define a democracy). Whether this forum is a good medium or not is a different issue.

What I find ridiculous is that GW is trying to impress that any and all forms of electronic copies are illegal, seeing how electronic copies are significantly easier to handle when sitting at the computer, this I find irritating to the extreme.
Then there's the fact that you need an enormous amount of printed material per person to play the game, and that GW doesn't have any decent quick reference material you are forced to buy the full codex even if you won't ever touch CSM or Eldar in your life personally.

**Gibbsey**

Ketara wrote:
Ah okay i missread what you said, so your saying you want to argue... semantics?

At this stage, yes. However, there is a method to my madness.

Okay lol i guess that makes sense

Ketara wrote:

Yes software/ information can be stolen and is treated as physical property, can we agree on this?
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/software+theft?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=software+theft&sa=Search#922

To say that there is no theft only "copying" is naive, the theft is of intellectual property.

Ah, but see, that's why the law would class me downloading a codex as 'piracy' instead of straight out theft. I'm not denying that I am illegally acquiring intellectual property, or even that I can be morally bankrupt for doing so. Simply that piracy is sufficiently distinct from regular stealing as to require its own definition, and as such, accusing someone of regular old theft for downloading a codex is incorrect.

I dont remember saying stealing was morally bankrupt

Ketara wrote:

Since when was reading a freinds codex stealing? I see the point you are trying to make, but computers are a special case. Laws have been added to deal specifically with computers. The closest thing to this is patents, someone patents an idea or design and if you use it in the future you need their permission. Could you have come across the idea independantly?, sure its just they beat you to patenting it.

By simple logic, if acquiring intellectual property illegally is stealing, then simply reading a friends copy would be stealing. This is obviously absurd. This is why the law recognises the illegal acquisition of intellectual property as piracy, and not a simple case of stealing. The two are distinct from one another.

And since when have i assumed "that acquisition of intellectual property automatically equals theft"? I have talked about having a copy that was obtaind fraudulently.

Sorry, insert the word 'illegal' in between 'that' and 'acquisition.

Im starting to get the feeling your just playing devils advocate.

To an extent, but what I'm actually trying to do is separate the crime of piracy from all the emotional and cultural baggage of the crime of stealing. But before I can do that, I must prove that piracy and stealing, whilst similar in many regards, are distinct crimes in their own right. This distinction between the two is a pre-requisite to any kind of serious discussion on the matter I feel.

I see now what your getting at im under the assumption that Piracy is a form of stealing, Piracy is a specific case but when you classify intellectual property as physical property it does become theft. If this distinction is right or not does kind of go into a philisophical / social debate and i guess thats where i was confusing that from. I will definatly agree Piracy and stealing are different crimes, i guess that i dont beleive that they are mutually exclusive.

I wouldent really say simply reading a friends copy would be illegal or stealing, im not really sure how to approach this at the moment but "if acquiring intellectual property illegally is stealing, then simply reading a friends copy would be stealing" i wouldent say reading a freinds copy would be illegal.

My argument is based on classifying intellectual property as physical property, i'll agree if this was not the case then yes it would not be stealing and not piracy because there would be nothing to pirate with no copyrights etc. If Intellectual property cannot be considered physical property at least from a legal point of view then Piracy cannot exist.

**Merkmon**

Comparing the download of a 25 USD book from a large company to breaking into someone's house and stealing items from it is silly.

Stop making the comparison. If you think the two are seriously comparable you are wrong.

Can we please avoid the use of certain terms please, especially those which many people find grossly offensive when used as an insult. There's no need to sink to this level.

much obliged

reds8n.

**The Dreadnote**

My argument is based on classifying intellectual property as physical property

I'm having immense difficulty trying to think of any way you could argue that intellectual property is the same as physical property...

**Steelmage99**

RustyKnight wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:That I do. Doing something illegal is most certainly wrong. The history-pages might justify your actions afterwards, but make no mistake, it is still wrong.

You honestly think the underground rail-road (illegal clandestine network of people who helped transport escaped slaves into northern states and Canada during the 1800's) was morally wrong to help slaves escape?

Yeah, it is exactly the same thing. Morally committed people risking their lives in the cause of other peoples freedom is completely comparable to lazy people who would rather turn to crime than get a job, earn the money and buy the codexes.
We should really institute a national holliday to honour these champions of freedom.

Steelmage99 wrote:Keep in mind that there was only one Gandhi and one MLK, but there are thousands who (for various reasons) chooses to ignore the law and those people aren't noble or fighting for their freedom or anything like that.....they are simply criminals.

So the law can never be wrong? Sharia law is morally okay because it is the law?

I didn't say that, didn't I? Two different uses of the word "wrong" there, I'm afraid.

**Terminus**

Wow, so I read the first few pages and it was basically a pointless argument over semantics/legal jargon. I skip to the end to see if anything else is going on, and see a different group of people arguing almost verbatim about the same stupid crap.

Anyway... what is this Scribe the op is referring to? I usually just use torrents.

**The Dreadnote**

Steelmage99 wrote:Yeah, it is exactly the same thing. Morally committed people risking their lives in the cause of other peoples freedom is completely comparable to lazy people who would rather turn to crime than get a job, earn the money and buy the codexes.
We should really institute a national holliday to honour these champions of freedom.

Could you make your mind up as to whether all illegal actions are wrong please?

**Gibbsey**

The Dreadnote wrote:
My argument is based on classifying intellectual property as physical property
I'm having immense difficulty trying to think of any way you could argue that intellectual property is the same as physical property...

Well its what Software patents are based on

**Ketara**

I see now what your getting at im under the assumption that Piracy is a form of stealing, Piracy is a specific case but when you classify intellectual property as physical property it does become theft.

I would be interested to see how intellectual property could ever become physical, any more than honour or dignity.

If this distinction is right or not does kind of go into a philisophical / social debate and i guess thats where i was confusing that from. I will definatly agree Piracy and stealing are different crimes, i guess that i dont beleive that they are mutually exclusive.

As I said, I could believe that one could steal intellectual property, as long as it was in some kind of tangible form, for example, blackmailing a chap so I get the rights to his intellectual property.

I wouldent really say simply reading a friends copy would be illegal or stealing, im not really sure how to approach this at the moment but "if acquiring intellectual property illegally is stealing, then simply reading a friends copy would be stealing" i wouldent say reading a freinds copy would be illegal.

Indeed. And the reason simply reading your friends copy is NOT illegal, is because of that distinction between theft and piracy. Otherwise, it would be illegal if the two were the one and same.

My argument is based on classifying intellectual property as physical property, i'll agree if this was not the case then yes it would not be stealing and not piracy because there would be nothing to pirate with no copyrights etc. If Intellectual property cannot be considered physical property at least from a legal point of view then Piracy cannot exist.

No, it would be theft of intellectual property that would be unable to exist. Piracy is the crime of illicitly acquiring a duplicate of intellectual property. As intellectual property is intangible by its very nature, the crime of piracy was created to separate it from the theft, where you acquire more tangible goods. The two are similar, but distinct. To put it as simply as possible:-

Theft/stealing=Taking physical goods
Piracy=Acquiring a duplicate of intellectual property (which is intangible by its very nature)

This distinction has been what I've been driving at this whole time. Shoplifting, bank robbery, and so on fall into the first category. Recasting and music downloading would fall into the latter.

Therefore downloading a codex is not stealing. It's piracy.

**Steelmage99**

The Dreadnote wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:Yeah, it is exactly the same thing. Morally committed people risking their lives in the cause of other peoples freedom is completely comparable to lazy people who would rather turn to crime than get a job, earn the money and buy the codexes.
We should really institute a national holliday to honour these champions of freedom.
Could you make your mind up as to whether all illegal actions are wrong please?

My position is the same.

The line between freedom fighter and terrorist can only ever be seen in hindsight.

My point is don't try to hide your (generic "your") pettiness behind other peoples sacrifice.

**Gibbsey**

Ketara wrote:
I wouldent really say simply reading a friends copy would be illegal or stealing, im not really sure how to approach this at the moment but "if acquiring intellectual property illegally is stealing, then simply reading a friends copy would be stealing" i wouldent say reading a freinds copy would be illegal.

Indeed. And the reason simply reading your friends copy is NOT illegal, is because of that distinction between theft and piracy. Otherwise, it would be illegal if the two were the one and same.

Ah but i would say that it is neither theft nor piracy.

My point is for software patents, software is treated as physical property. And so even if you count it as Duplication something has still been stolen, the subject of the patent Intellectual Property

Intangeble things can be stolen, like identity theft, nothing needs to be physically stolen everything can be done electronically.

Am i right in that we are only arguing Piracy vs theft?

so my arguement is that theft does not always imply physical property.

**nosferatu1001**

Steelmage - your position is inconsistent. Colour me surprised.

First you say it is wrong because it is illegal. Then you say something else equally illegal wasn't and isnt wrong.

So which is it? Illegal is always wrong, or illegal isn't always wrong. Pick one, or concede that your position is invalid.

Edit: to make things clear I actually doubt you will answer this directly, as you have ducked other peoples attempts. But pointing out hypocrisy is fun

Edit2: Just to comment: software patents are a horrific travesty thankfully not recognised in the more sane parts of the world. Bringing them into the discussion moves things away from copyright.

**Ketara**

Gibbsey wrote:
Ketara wrote:
I wouldent really say simply reading a friends copy would be illegal or stealing, im not really sure how to approach this at the moment but "if acquiring intellectual property illegally is stealing, then simply reading a friends copy would be stealing" i wouldent say reading a freinds copy would be illegal.

Indeed. And the reason simply reading your friends copy is NOT illegal, is because of that distinction between theft and piracy. Otherwise, it would be illegal if the two were the one and same.

Ah but i would say that it is neither theft nor piracy.

My point is for software patents, software is treated as physical property. And so even if you count it as Duplication something has still been stolen, the subject of the patent Intellectual Property

Intangeble things can be stolen, like identity theft, nothing needs to be physically stolen everything can be done electronically.

Sorry, I misread your initial statement there. Allow me to retract my previous statement and reply to that point again.

I wouldent really say simply reading a friends copy would be illegal or stealing, im not really sure how to approach this at the moment but "if acquiring intellectual property illegally is stealing, then simply reading a friends copy would be stealing" i wouldent say reading a freinds copy would be illegal.

But it is. By memorising your friends copy, you have 'downloaded' intellectual property to your brain without permission or payment. Otherwise, I can download all the music I like illegally, but as long as I don't listen to it, I'm not breaking any laws, ne? If downloading is theft, then the illegality of the matter comes from the transfer of the intellectual property to your mind, not the medium of that transfer.

However, this results in making reading your friends copy a crime whereby you have stolen intellectual property. The result is a slightly separate classification for acquiring intellectual property without license or payment, called piracy. This is where you can read your friends copy freely, but as long as you don't photocopy it, or scan it, you're not breaking the law. This is the essential difference between piracy and theft, it allows you to have stuff in you mind, and borrow things from your friends without breaking the law.

By making it illegal to acquire the intellectual property without paying for it, by reading your friends copy, you are breaking the law.

Am i right in that we are only arguing Piracy vs theft?

so my arguement is that theft does not always imply physical property.

I would honestly say that Identity theft is a whole other kettle of a fish, and one that I'm going to avoid for one, for fear of opening up another ten page discussion

What's being argued here is this:-

I say downloading a codex is piracy, and not theft. Both are similar crimes, but distinct from each other. This distinction is necessary in order to stop it being illegal to read your friends codex.

You say that stealing and downloading a codex are impossible to separate. Therefore downloading a codex is theft. However, this results in it being logically illegal to read your friends codex.

**Macok**

Steelmage99 wrote:
The Dreadnote wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:Yeah, it is exactly the same thing. Morally committed people risking their lives in the cause of other peoples freedom is completely comparable to lazy people who would rather turn to crime than get a job, earn the money and buy the codexes.
We should really institute a national holliday to honour these champions of freedom.
Could you make your mind up as to whether all illegal actions are wrong please?

My position is the same.

The line between freedom fighter and terrorist can only ever be seen in hindsight.

My point is don't try to hide your (generic "your") pettiness behind other peoples sacrifice.

I kinda agree with Steelmage99 here. As I have pointed out earlier I think there is a BIG difference in breaking the law to help other human being and breaking it for your own, and your own only benefit. This law isn't breaking, threatening or stepping on any of your dignity, life, safety or can harm you in any way. Breaking it, you ARE hurting the original holder of the copyright. Most of the time it's a very small loss. In case of GW - sales from codexes are significantly lower than other physical products, but for other companies things look entirely different.

Look at it that way, after the act of piracy YOU gained something, and the owner did loose potential cash. It is not ok.

I'm having immense difficulty trying to think of any way you could argue that intellectual property is the same as physical property...

Because it's not. But breaking the copyright laws is still wrong and it isn't justified just because it is somewhat different than stealing physical property.

da001 wrote:
Macok wrote:
Ok. GW earned some buck. How abut companies that produced the videogames? Did you buy anything from them? My example was not accidentally about computer software, where it's very easy to see the extent of "sharing".

Yes, I am afraid a lot of people in Relic got a little richer because of me. And I do believe I am not alone here. If a company has a good product, they have nothing to fear from the Internet. If you like a product, you will buy it, for you get better quality. And a codex is cheap. If you like it and want to play with it, there is no reason for not buying it.

Cool, but they earned because you BOUGHT the game. Hundreds and thousands of people who didn't can't be justified just because YOU bought it. Piracy is wrong. What you did isn't because YOU bought the game.

Everybody say that the original owner isn't loosing anything. Bud did you stop to think that the idea, the product didn't magically appear before him? Most of the time the creator of thought or whatever used some of his life to create the "thing". He already spent some resources - his time, his money, his ideas etc. to create "the thing". Is it really right that now you are using it without giving ANY compensation to the creator? Be advised that he spent all those resources specifically to earn money, not to bring something for you for free.

**Steelmage99**

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelmage - your position is inconsistent. Colour me surprised.

I am sure a lot of things surprises you.

(yeah, I know....sarcasm. Just couldn't help my self)

First you say it is wrong because it is illegal. Then you say something else equally illegal wasn't and isnt wrong.

It hard to get, isn't it?

Something can be wrong (illegal) to do, but later history will decide that the action was justified and thus retroactively made "not-wrong".

This isn't something one can hold in front of oneself like a shield to justify ones actions. Such amnesty is only applied retroactively.

So which is it? Illegal is always wrong, or illegal isn't always wrong. Pick one, or concede that your position is invalid.

First off, get over yourself. Your childish demands that people concede something or retracts some implied falsehood is getting old. Just move on.

Second, like I have stated before; illegal is wrong.

Perhaps one day things like copyright and IP will be abolished and the pioneers of this move celebrated as heroes. It might even be seen as the start of something great that lead to freedom and happiness for all.
Right now? It's simply illegal and wrong.

Edit: to make things clear I actually doubt you will answer this directly, as you have ducked other peoples attempts. But pointing out hypocrisy is fun

What attempts are you talking about?

**RustyKnight**

Steelmage99 wrote: Yeah, it is exactly the same thing. Morally committed people risking their lives in the cause of other peoples freedom is completely comparable to lazy people who would rather turn to crime than get a job, earn the money and buy the codexes.
We should really institute a national holliday to honour these champions of freedom.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to paint everyone who pirates as a jobless loser, but you really didn't get that creative with it. Of course, you also did it in order to avoid to conceding to a lack of consistency in your beliefs. You said that breaking the law is wrong. However, I have given you examples of when breaking the law is a good thing. Ghandi and MLK also provide good examples. Following you train of thought, a morally upstanding person would've never supported the underground railroad. Regardless, you're trying to avoid acknowledging the inconsistency of your views by creating a scarecrow. I'm not trying to equate abolitionists with pirates. I'm using the underground railroad as an example of how illegal things can be morally correct.

Steelmage99 wrote: I didn't say that, didn't I? Two different uses of the word "wrong" there, I'm afraid.

I can think of two definitions of "wrong" you could've used. Either "illegal" or "morally wrong." Stating that illegal things are illegal just seemed strange, so I figured that you meant illegal things are morally wrong. If you actually meant the former and not the latter, then this entire conversation is pointless as your replies are gibberish.

"Legality does not denote morality"
"Illegal things are illegal"

Steelmage99 wrote:The line between freedom fighter and terrorist can only ever be seen in hindsight.

Then how can things ever progress? If everyone merely accepts that the status quo is correct, noone will ever desire to change things.

Terminus wrote:Wow, so I read the first few pages and it was basically a pointless argument over semantics/legal jargon. I skip to the end to see if anything else is going on, and see a different group of people arguing almost verbatim about the same stupid crap.

Scribe

There are also several other people that wanted to feel superior by belittling others. Scribe is Scribd; the OP just didn't bother to do any research before ranting. It's also possible that the misspelling was an intentional move to appear casual/cool. Course, the OP also tried to equate piracy with eBay, so...

Steelmage99 wrote:My point is don't try to hide your (generic "your") pettiness behind other peoples sacrifice.

Look! It's that scarecrow again!

**da001**

Macok wrote:

da001 wrote:
Macok wrote:
Ok. GW earned some buck. How abut companies that produced the videogames? Did you buy anything from them? My example was not accidentally about computer software, where it's very easy to see the extent of "sharing".

Yes, I am afraid a lot of people in Relic got a little richer because of me. And I do believe I am not alone here. If a company has a good product, they have nothing to fear from the Internet. If you like a product, you will buy it, for you get better quality. And a codex is cheap. If you like it and want to play with it, there is no reason for not buying it.

Cool, but they earned because you BOUGHT the game. Hundreds and thousands of people who didn't can't be justified just because YOU bought it.

Everybody say that the original owner isn't loosing anything. Bud did you stop to think that the idea, the product didn't magically appear before him? Most of the time the creator of thought or whatever used some of his life to create the "thing". He already spent some resources - his time, his money, his ideas etc. to create "the thing". Is it really right that now you are using it without giving ANY compensation to the creator? Be advised that he spent all those resources specifically to earn money, not to bring something for you for free.

I do not care very much about what everybody says, actually. And I am not saying that the owner is "not losing", I am saying that the author is making a lot of money thanks to sharing. Hundreds and thousands of people tried the game and did buy the game and it was a complete success. Videogames are one of the most profitable legal business out there if they are properly done and people know enough about them. A lot of people try one game and then buy it, or the sequels, or both, and the Game of the Year Edition. Because everyone knows that it is worthy. And yeah I know they will keep forever complaining about not making enough money. I do not accept this as a truth. And I know BAD companies just get destroyed if their crappy products are properly tryed. Serves them well. They were trying to... steal.

Piracy is wrong. What you did isn't because YOU bought the game.

Humm, thanks, but I download stuff and I only buy it IF I like it. It is really right then? Or it is right when I buy it and wrong when I do not? I have downloaded stuff so awful… should I have bought it? Should I have trusted the commercials and bought it instead of downloaded it? I am against this black/white duality. It scares me.

RustyKnight wrote:
Scribe is Scribd; the OP just didn't bother to do any research before ranting. It's also possible that the misspelling was an intentional move to appear casual/cool. Course, the OP also tried to equate piracy with eBay, so...

Yeah I noted that too. Has anybody else something against eBay? Seriously? Why?

But most of the people here (me too) didn´t answer the OP, everyone started talking about piracy. I think (sharing /piracy /stealing /rapingbabyseals/ daemonic intercourse /trying to awake the Dark Lord Cthulhu /whatever you want to call it) is actually a good thing for humanity as a whole but I am against using downloaded codexes (not codices) for your army. It is your army! It is cheap! Buy it! Support GW! Khorne lives because they are making money you

!!

RustyKnight wrote:
Look! It's that scarecrow again!

Ah! He has found me! I should go!

**rivers64**

Guys, I just wanna say this should not be an argument about stealing at all, just about making money for GW. Honestly the people bringing stealing junk into this discussion are only doing it as reason they're annoyed.

**micahaphone**

Illegal stuff is illegal. doesn't matter if it is "stealing", it is still illegal. Sometimes you should go against the law (Gandhi, MLK, ect.), but I really doubt that you will be able to argue that piracy is morally correct (please do not take this as a challenge). If you want to find out about special rules, tips, or tricks for certain armies, why not ask? This is a great forum, and most game store owners are also glad to help out, as it (most likely) will help keep you in the hobby.

**rivers64**

It's not piracy if you're not downloading it, but just reading it.

**micahaphone**

Morally wrong, don't do it. If you need to find out the what's what of an army, ask here, look in the back of the rulebook, or ask someone.

**rivers64**

Whats morally wrong about it?

**micahaphone**

You are viewing something that is not yours, that you normally have to pay for. This is unfair to companies that depend upon their customers buying and paying for their materials. While it can be argued that GW makes more money off of models than codexes (most likely), they still make money off of them, so it is better to ask then to look.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just thought I'd say thank you for the good discussion.

**rivers64**

Ok, but my point is not that GW would not make any money anyway even if you didn't look it up online.

**Kouzuki**

micahaphone wrote:Morally wrong, don't do it. If you need to find out the what's what of an army, ask here, look in the back of the rulebook, or ask someone.

I also thought I'd ask. What is "morally wrong?" What is my culture and morals are different than yours? What if my culture and morals don't condemn this? Who is to say I am "morally wrong" for doing so?

**Monster Rain**

Wow, we're back to that again?

Tell me, do you think this is wrong?

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-18/world/nigeria.child.witchcraft_1_witches-nigeria-abuse?_s=PM:WORLD

Christian Eshiett was a rambunctious pre-teen who spent a lot of time cavorting with his friends in southern Nigeria. He would skip school and run away from home for days, frustrating his grandfather, who oversaw the boy's care.

"I beat him severely with canes until they broke, yet he never shed a tear," said Eshiett Nelson Eshiett, 76. "One day, I took a broom to hit him and he started crying. Then I knew he was possessed by demons. ... Nigerian witches are terrified of brooms.

From that day two years ago, Christian, now 14, was branded a witch. The abuse intensified.

"They would take my clothes off, tie me up and beat me," he told CNN in a telephone interview.

The teen is one of the so-called witch children in Eket, a city in oil-rich Akwa Ibom state of Nigeria.

They are blamed for causing illness, death and destruction, prompting some communities to put them through harrowing punishments to "cleanse" them of their supposed magical powers.

"Children accused of witchcraft are often incarcerated in churches for weeks on end and beaten, starved and tortured in order to extract a confession," said Gary Foxcroft, program director of Stepping Stones Nigeria, a nonprofit that helps alleged witch children in the region.

Many of those targeted have traits that make them stand out, including learning disabilities, stubbornness and ailments such as epilepsy, he added.

The issue of "child witches" is soaring in Nigeria and other parts of the world, Foxcroft said.

The states of Akwa Ibom and Cross River have about 15,000 children branded as witches, and most of them end up abandoned and abused on the streets, he said.

Christian ran away from home and wandered around for two years with other children similarly accused. He said they stole, begged for food and performed menial jobs to survive.

The plight of "child witches" is raising concern among aid organizations, including the United Nations.

"It is a growing issue worldwide, among not just African communities, but in countries such as Nepal as well," said Jeff Crisp, head of policy development and evaluation for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. "We are trying to see whether it is a neglected protected issue."

Belief in witchcraft thrives worldwide. About 1,000 people accused of being witches in Gambia were locked in detention centers in March and forced to drink a dangerous hallucinogenic potion, human rights organization Amnesty International said.

If you think this is wrong, why? It's acceptable behavior in their culture. Who are you to criticize them?

And before you say it, I'm not equating it with internet codex piracy. I'm showing the silliness of "cultural relativist" arguments in general.

**rivers64**

Kouzuki wrote:
micahaphone wrote:Morally wrong, don't do it. If you need to find out the what's what of an army, ask here, look in the back of the rulebook, or ask someone.

I also thought I'd ask. What is "morally wrong?" What is my culture and morals are different than yours? What if my culture and morals don't condemn this? Who is to say I am "morally wrong" for doing so?

You could make an argument like this against anything, stealing, murder, anything. We go by the standards of our time and where you live. These are essentially the government based standards.

**micahaphone**

In the developed countries where wargaming is popular, those are the cultural norms. I must admit that I am not an expert upon Japan, but I assume that the official government and public stance is somewhat against piracy and other such looking at illegally shared things whatnot. Good point, though.

**Kouzuki**

rivers64 wrote:You could make an argument like this against anything, stealing, murder, anything. We go by the standards of our time and where you live. These are essentially the government based standards.

Morals and the law are not the same. Do not confuse them. Law may be influenced by morals, and cultural norms, but not all morals and cultural norms are the law.

As of right now there are also many governments across the globe. One government will put you in jail for a day for stealing, while another will chop your hands off. Who is to say which government is right?

micahaphone wrote:In the developed countries where wargaming is popular, those are the cultural norms. I must admit that I am not an expert upon Japan, but I assume that the official government and public stance is somewhat against piracy and other such looking at illegally shared things whatnot. Good point, though.

Where I live now has nothing to do with my culture, nor my morals.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, an argument of "morally wrong" means nothing. Killing is "morally wrong" but you still do it in war. Hell, civilian life if you kill 1 person you are a murderer, but you can kill thousands on a battlefield and you are a hero. "Morally wrong" means nothing.

According to the "cultural norms in developed countries" all soldiers should be put in high security prison and/or put on death sentence for bearing arms and the violent murder of other human beings.