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

    It’s not irrelevant because it’s an objective statement followed by a question about that statement. The morals, semantics, or legality of it isn’t what I’m arguing about (although I might concede that it could be argued as an ethical question which may converge slightly with morals).

    • 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.