So, you’re actually having an issue with my statement that US copyright law exists? Ok. Now you’re trolling. This was my only argument and I had a link to back it up.
Copyright laws exist. No kidding. What next? What’s the rest of your point?
People saying they shouldn’t exist, are not ignorant.
People saying they don’t care, are not ignorant.
Neither position is challenged by some rando parroting ‘but laws.’ Do you understand that laws can be changed? Do you understand how and why that starts? Do you speak English?
Alongside the finger-wag to oooh-so-scary report me, yeah, I’m about done humoring you. You know less than nothing, you patience vampire. Next time try to act less stupid.
My argument: “the law exists”. My argument isn’t about the ethics of what you should or shouldn’t do. I’m saying there is a law, and that it exists. I win this argument, unless you are denying that the law doesn’t exist.
Your argument: I don’t know anything because I can’t spell. You’ve yet to back up your claims for this, once.
Ignoring ethics is why you’re wrong about this. Nobody’s arguing non-existence - and you can’t win an argument against nobody. The issue is something else, as I’ve repeatedly explained to you, but alas, you are functionally illiterate.
So, you’re actually having an issue with my statement that US copyright law exists? Ok. Now you’re trolling. This was my only argument and I had a link to back it up.
If your only argument is acknowledged in the first sentence, maybe you never understood the conversation.
Copyright laws exist. No kidding. What next? What’s the rest of your point?
People saying they shouldn’t exist, are not ignorant.
People saying they don’t care, are not ignorant.
Neither position is challenged by some rando parroting ‘but laws.’ Do you understand that laws can be changed? Do you understand how and why that starts? Do you speak English?
I didn’t have an argument, bro. Your argument was that I didn’t know anything about the topic because I mispelled it.
“My argument still stands.”
“That was my only argument.”
“I didn’t have an argument, bro.”
Yeah, you’re just an asshole. You don’t care what words mean.
You don’t care about anything I’ve said past mocking your surface-level ignorance. You are stuck on that. I have been talking about everything but.
What you’re doing is trolling and you’re not very good at it.
Sorry kid, but Copyright law is still the law, even if you want to somehow disprove it by yelling words at me. Are you done?
‘We’re deliberately rejecting this law.’
‘But the law!’
‘Laws can be changed.’
‘But the law!’
‘This law is bad.’
‘But the law!’
‘Civil disobedience is strategic.’
‘But the law!’
‘Do you speak English?’
‘But the law!’
Alongside the finger-wag to oooh-so-scary report me, yeah, I’m about done humoring you. You know less than nothing, you patience vampire. Next time try to act less stupid.
My argument: “the law exists”. My argument isn’t about the ethics of what you should or shouldn’t do. I’m saying there is a law, and that it exists. I win this argument, unless you are denying that the law doesn’t exist.
Your argument: I don’t know anything because I can’t spell. You’ve yet to back up your claims for this, once.
‘But the laaaaaaaw!’
Ignoring ethics is why you’re wrong about this. Nobody’s arguing non-existence - and you can’t win an argument against nobody. The issue is something else, as I’ve repeatedly explained to you, but alas, you are functionally illiterate.