Ail said:
Kasz216 said:
Ail said:
fordy said:
LivingMetal said:
fordy said:
LivingMetal said:
thranx said:
Not sure but I thought I saw an article that Austriala was going to be changing some of its security laws. Congress should be concerned about protecting consumers not Corporations. But i would not be suprised if that is the route they go.
|
Corporations are run by people. Corporations hire people. Those people are consumers. As business thrives, the people who work for those corporations have a lively hood that allows them to be consumers. Let's not use your false assumption as an excuse to side against Sony again.
|
BP hires people too. Should they have not been dealt with as severely? the laws are there to protect the people, right?
|
I know what you're saying, but the "consumers rights" argument have been abused on these boards to give excuse to bash a console maker in this context. I have openly voiced that the PS3 is my console of choice. Sony has not violated my right as a consumers. Hackers have made my gaming life "harder." When Sony protects their IP, that in turn gives consumers such as I a better gaming experience. Let's not take thing out of context to "prove" a point.
|
No excuse at all. If it was Microsoft or Nintendo in the same situation, I'd still be on the side of consumer rights.
Don't think for a second that this has anything to do about what "team" you support.
you may not have felt that Sony violated your rights, but many others do. You're speaking for the minority, who believe it's okay for a company to screw you, so along as you don't have to admit you're wrong.
|
I would challenge your choice of the minority word.
the majority of customers do not mod their consoles. As a result the MAJORITY of customers do not feel like their rights have in any way been violated...the only violation they have sustained is the disruption they have experience first through the Anonymous attacks on Sony sites and then as a result of the breach...
|
I don't mod my console... and I do feel like my rights have been violated.
You would have to be pretty narrowminded to define your rights as only those you choose to exercise.
|
By the way, which of your rights did Sony violate ?
The right to mod your console ? They have nothing against that.
What they are against is you propagating the information on how to mod a console.
That is quite different.
Now maybe you are a genious hacker that found by himself how to hack the PS3 and were about to diffuse your knowhow.( are you geohotz).
But in all likelyhood this is a right you coudn't exercise even if you tried for the next 10 years. And it's definitly not a right 99.9% of the customers could exercise...
So basically none of your rights were affected.... GeoHotz rights might have been, but if you are so worried about how others right are affected I'm pretty sure sure there are millions and even billions of people that have much more basic rights denied every day, maybe you should care about those instead....
|
It's extremly simple to understand.
If a Baker is denied the ability to bake, can it not be said that his customers are denied bread?
We live in a society of specialization... by infringing on his right to distribute the product of his work. Sony has infringed on everybodies rights to choose or not choose to enjoy it.
It's up to me to choose what rights I decide to exercise and what rights I don't exercise. Any law preventing a right... even if it's one I wouldn't choose to do,(like say gay marriage) is an assault on my rights.
As for the bolded
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToWorseProblems
Arguing that expressing concern about a (relatively) small problem means that the person doesn't care about any larger problems. A type of Strawman, this fallacy takes the opponent's claim and appends to it the following additional claims:
That it is not possible to care about big and small problems simultaneously.
That venting a minor complaint is sufficient proof that the major problem is considered unimportant.
That if the person irritated over the minor problem did help solve or even cared about the big problems, he would then not mind at all that his car broke down or whatever the frustration was.
The intent is to distort the opponent's claim X into "X, which is far more important than anything else."
