🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

I wanna start a religion that is basically christianity but where Jesus is the nephew of god rather than the son.

@herag

That would be in line with the definition of the word, if we consider morality or rightousness a set of "rules" to live by. But generally the ruleset must be explicitly stated or inferred. Inference doesnt work well when your trying to argue logic though and probably would be best someone use the word "moral" rather than "legitimate" since we are arguing legality in the first place.

@anonymoose @null0x0 @Albright

@anonymoose

Of course there are natural/innate rights. But the word legitimate is about something validated by a law r set of rules. So you must specify the laws you are using to judge legitimacy, which i covered earlier. In the case of slavery we would say "slavery was legitimate in colonial america". Meanwhile if international law made it illegal one could say "slavery was illegitimate according to international law".

If you dont specify which set of rules something is legitimized under then you arent really saying anything useful

@herag

@null0x0 @Albright

@herag
I think i missed that.
@anonymoose @null0x0 @Albright

@zpartacoos I've seen some biology researchers before on QOTO but I dont recall who they are. I do know @arteteco is in the biology field, I dont think it is molecular biology though but he might know some people who are.

@barefootstache
I never ever add sodium salt to my food. If my food need salt i use potassium salt (much healthier). However i have never seen a potassium salt with iodine or fluoride

@anonymoose

Of course it is legitimate. Legitimate doesnt mean you approve of it or that it is right or even justified. If it is the law it is legitimate by definition, nothing else.

Slavery is bad, immoral, unwanted, unjustified, and should never be legal. But if it is legal then it is legitimate by definition

@herag @null0x0 @Albright

@icedquinn Bill is a fucking idiot every time he speaks, except when he says the opposite. Not to mention he is just plain obnoxious

@zleap You nw have full moderator privileges on discourse.

@lupyuen So jelly... well I know what im doing for breakfast tomorrow :)

@lupyuen I beleive you meant to say "The only acceptable amount of garlic" :)

@lupyuen cant say I've tried this... but my italian half already knows this is going to be epic!

@anonymoose

> 1. I don't actually think an arbitrary string of 1s and 0s can be copyrighted. Any combination would constitute a natural number, and therefor fall under facts and scientific discoveries exceptions to copyright.

Natural numbers both can and have been copyrighted. Though not every number can be copyrighted since small or simple numbers woulc clearly be seen as derivatives of numbers already int he public domain. See reference below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

> 2. No, laws are not "true". A US state once passed a bill specifying an incorrect value of Pi:

Not relevant, we are talking about true by definition, where the government literally has the authority to make such definitions. So they are always "true" in the sense that they defined the law and how to interpret it.

> Nothing you said shows that ideas are rivalrous or excludable (and to be a private good, they must be both).

I am not the one making the argument based on the goods matrix in the first place. You were. Your argument started on an axiom which was trivially incorrect, ergo your argument fails. I do not need to go behond that, its your argument not mine, the onus is on you to correct your error.

> IDK where you took economics, but yes absolutely at my college the rivalrous/excludable goods matrix was pretty early, like week one or two of my micro 101 class. Unfortunately I was not able to find my old textbooks. It looks like my wife sent them to good will, but I assure you I am not lying about it being 101 level stuff.

I wasnt saying that the goods matrix was not economics 101, I was pointing out your "proof" made statements about copyrights that were fundamentally false and in no way part of the teaching. Ergo your overall statement was not just not part of economics but erroneous. The fact that you referenced a valid part of economics (the matrix) despite being is moot.

@herag @null0x0 @Albright

@JackMeinoff Never said that, and everything i did say shows the exact opposite.

I told you I expected you to loose money, never said I **wanted** you to loose money. Stop making up things that were never said, come back to reality.

In fact I wouldnt have put as much effort in as I did if i didnt hope youd come to your senses and sell that garbage coin so you dont loose money. I just dont expect you to, as you made it quite clear you dont listen to anything but your own voice at this point.

@JackMeinoff At no point did I wish you harm... the fantasy continues.