• M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think it’s telling that you found that to be an ad-hominem when I made no attack about you whatsoever.

    Yes, “telling” as if people can not understand basic veiled implications.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        your delight stems more from who you are as a person rather than anything I’ve actually said.

        Sorry I take it back, this is not even veiled. Oh and mind addressing the basis of your argument? I want to know the not moral, legal or semantic argument.

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          If I thought you were being anything other than disingenuous, I’d answer you. As it stands, you’re neither honest nor actually interested in what my point is. If you were, you’d have said even something about the point and not about whether it’s a moral, legal, or semantic argument.

          • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Nice try dodging, my point is you have said anything you don’t like is “irreverent” to this argument as you are not making a moral, legal, or semantic argument. So if not one of these 3 what is your point based on other then a wordy version of “nuh uh”

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              That’s not true. I haven’t said anything is irrelevant simply because I don’t like it. I’ve said it’s irrelevant because it’s not relevant to the point I’ve made. Whether something is legal or not is irrelevant because my argument is not taking a position on the legality of something. It’s also irrelevant if the point deals only with the semantics of what a specific word means because my argument is not about the definition of the word, it’s about the deprivation of a gain in an exchange. It’s also not relevant if it’s a moral argument because I’m not against piracy and don’t care about the morality of it. I’m only arguing about the justification people are using to pretend that piracy is not depriving someone of the value of their work. My point is in asking people to simply admit that they are stealing when pirating something. Otherwise, piracy would not be a thing. There’d be no reason for the word “piracy” as the acquisition of the content would not matter if it was something other than a form of theft.

              But, sure… It’s just a wordy version of “nuh uh”. Now keep telling me you’re not a dishonest person.

              • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                My point is in asking people to simply admit that they are stealing when pirating something. Otherwise, piracy would not be a thing. There’d be no reason for the word “piracy” as the acquisition of the content would not matter if it was something other than a form of theft.

                And here is the fun part, you have been soundly and completely shown that piracy (software) is not stealing or theft in the semantic, legal and even moral sense. You even help others arguments with your “irrelevant” approach to any counterpoint by stating that is not the argument you are making. Then you also call anyone who engages with you “dishonest” without the slightest indication or example of dishonesty.

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Ignoring and misrepresenting my argument to argue another one is dishonest. You can claim it’s not but that just gives me more reason not to engage with you.

                  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Who said I ignored or misrepresented your argument? This is the first time you have brought this particular accusation and I am somewhat interested in how you came to such a conclusion. I am clearly not ignoring you or your argument (I am still waiting for you to finish defining it after all) and other then quotes from you I have hardly even started to represent, let alone misrepresent you.

                    I think once again we can look at the many people you call dishonest as a form of projection.

                  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    They’re not ignoring your argument, your argument is simply flawed.

                    My point is in asking people to simply admit that they are stealing when pirating something.

                    Stealing is different to pirating. You can say that both are wrong, but you can’t claim that both are the same.