I live in Florida, surrounded by red and I'm from a red state/area. To be clear, I think it's PERFECTLY VALID to hold the thought "my money and stuff are mine and I should have a say who gets to use it". And to your point about democrats: yeah that's effectively what I mean. Universal health care and paying for college are publicly funded from....other people's money. Most Republicans I've talked to wish we had either or both, but balk when taxes are raised. They would rather be the ones to decide who gets a portion of their paycheck from an understandable hesitancy to have the government be the one to decide who gets the money. Republicans see that prudence as necessary, and most democrats I know see that as an unwillingness to contribute to the "greater good".
Unanimous_anonymous
I think the defining difference is whether that sharing extends to just friends and family, or if it becomes more egalitarian and extends to everyone. From my experience, Republicans tend to stop at the former, and Democrats tend to stop at the latter. There is also usually differences in what they're willing to share to both parties, namely money.
I think that comment is saying the opposite of what you're saying
FOSS is made because people want it to be made and made available. People who make games and art vary between it purely wanting to be made and wanting to make a profit off of that. If you're dense enough to think saying you value something at $0 and then still enjoying it like the other people willing to support the IP, then you're an asshole.
There is a balance between what the creator is allowed to value their idea and what people are willing to pay for that idea. If they can't find a middle ground, then the transaction shouldn't occur. If you force that transaction by stealing their idea and efforts, you're being a thief. What you use to justify your actions is up to you, but you're a thief nonetheless.
It is theft, but the argument is better framed as to whether or not it's moral theft. Most people who pirate feel comfortable pirating from larger corporations over small time creators/groups, with the usual justifications you've provided above. Personally, I've justified it at times because I couldn't afford to purchase the thing, which leads to another argument of "if I wasn't going to buy it in the first place, is it actually effecting them".
There is no argument to be made, however, where it isn't true that if you were to have purchased it, the owner of the idea will make more off of it. Whether you care or not about that owner getting more is a different argument, but you are robbing them of value for the idea, however little that value might have been.
I'm not arguing for or against pirating, but people in the comments saying it isn't theivery really seem to be arguing whether stealing is wrong or not. Call it what it is and go back to the argument people have been having for thousands of years.
Which, I realize I didn't address libraries. Taxes pay for libraries to operate, and then the library pays to have copies of the works. If no one wants to read my book, libraries aren't going to just go out and buy thousands of copies. And trying to tackle libraries would also start to erode arguments for reselling something. And to bring it back to the OP, I've read books in a library before that I enjoyed enough to purchase a copy of my own. I've also read books I haven't. But someone purchased that book for me to rent, and in a small part, I've paid for that book myself by paying taxes.
I find it funny you're calling him intentionally obtuse right after you seem to just simplify theivery at whether something physical is stolen. If you're basing it off of something being stolen or not, IP is used to protect the realized gains off of an idea. Yeah you aren't stealing a physical something, but you are robbing the creator of what the item is valued at. It is exactly the issue that you can't own an idea that IP is usually heavily protected. Ironically, the intention is to help new ideas(and their profiting worth) from being stolen by someone (or something ie Coporations) with better means to distribute and profit off of the idea. Otherwise, why wouldn't I just get a copy of a game, underpriced it, and sell it as cheap as I wanted? I've put no thought or labor into actualized the idea, so I have no reason to price it beyond my initial investment. It why when someone (or something) sells full rights to their IP, it can be worth millions. They don't care about the idea. They care about what the idea can provide in the future.
To draw a parallel, saying IP isn't real is like saying currency has no worth. On the surface, duh of course currency isn't actually worth anything. It's not like people can (practically) eat a dollar or make shoes out of a dollar, but we've (generally) collectively decided it's worth something. It instils confidence that when I walk into a store, my currency has a conversion rate of so many dollars per good. If thousands of people added millions of dollars into their bank accounts by just "copying" the electronic money, no one has lost money, but the value of the currency is deflated by those actions because there's nothing stopping everyone from from just adding millions to their accounts. The confidence that people will be harshly dealt with for deflating the currency like that is one of the innate things that gives currencies (and IP's) their value. Handwaving it away by saying it isn't actually real is also just being obtuse.
Buo-y
Apparently we have the Dutch to blame for that one, as the verb form is apparently descended from Spanish.
It's obtuse because it's not like another one is going to crop up in the same town in the same day to give the workers jobs, nor is it going to solve the issue of regulating the industry properly. The people enforcing the policies need teeth, and those teeth should be able to bite at the people causing these conditions. Places get like this because 3rd party inspection is underfunded and underpowered. Shutting a place down means it cuts into profits while potentially cutting off workers' incomes. It doesn't mean the owners or board get significantly impacted.
Assuming you aren't being purposefully obtuse, the answer is to make them safe and suitable environments for people to work in. You can figure out a way to punish the company who is creating these conditions, but for the time being, the answer is to make them reasonable to work in.
No. They're saying that slaughter houses don't appear to be going away in the near future since there is a still a fervent demand for meat, so the answer of "just shut them down" isn't a valid solution yet. They should be removed of human cruelty until we can fully remove them.
I'd like to bring your attention to Crystal Project on Steam. It's honestly one of the best jrpg games I've played in the last 5 years. It's less story driven than the DW/DQ series, but it is platformy and very exploration based. I haven't played since the balance patches, but the game was about everything I could possibly want in an exploration jrpg. It's more Final Fantasy like, but it scratched a deep itch I didn't know I had.
I assumed it was to sarcastically "twist" there idols. Kind of like the "Jesus being a dick" memes.