Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 9886320" data-attributes="member: 6778210">lmfaoAnd how does it promote such things? Why do we need to have such laws to promote such things if the prevention of theft wasn't needed for this? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f606.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":LOL:" title="Laugh    :LOL:"  data-smilie="17"data-shortname=":LOL:" />Honestly, you're just proving my point to me.Plus it's worth noting that there had been cases like Millar vs. Taylor in Britain using natural law underpinnings in such cases dating back to 1769:But "natural law" isn't something static like you seem to think; it's something that has evolved over time as well, just like our rights. These things are dynamic, and we should look back at such things with the view from the present, not trying to endlessly assert some sort of originalist take that no longer fits our own time period.That's cool, but it doesn't negate the literal reasoning given at the end, which speaks to why it is needed to encourage learning and innovation: because if people feel like their inventions or works will simply be stolen, then they simply will not make things. You can't tout one while ignore the other, which is what you are trying to do. Meanwhile, I can take both because my argument doesn't hinge on not making it about innovation or learning: I recognize that absolutely to be a part of it, but the reason this measure is being taken is to prevent intellectual theft from discouraging such things.I think they are actually pretty damn good, to be honest. Moreso than you, at least, given that you clearly are still using AI summaries.But at the same time, natural law is an evolving concept, given that even the Founders were wrong on certain bits regarding certain classes or types of people. As we understand and develop more, we gain a clearer idea of the world than we once knew; what makes the Founders interesting and unique is that, despite their many flaws, they put down some rather radical ideas for that have stood the test of it.And how would they incentivize innovation? What's the incentive? Think about it: what problem are they trying to solve with it? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />lmfao still trying to tout the AI search while I had to bring you to the Statute of Anne. And yeah, it did start as a censorship tool, but that clearly changes with the Statute of Anne reexamining and creating copyright law as we know it.</blockquote>

Verification