Yeah, I am going to have to disagree after reading though your over 50 posts here. You point is in tatters, you are grasping at straws and the funniest part is you seem to flat out ignore anything that does not help your argument. You have many times been semantic and then when proven wrong on semantics proceeded to say you are not arguing semantics. Same deal with legality, and when asked if you have a moral argument, you deflect or ignore.
Like I said, I am a fan of your posts here. I get a chuckle when people double down over and over.
You are free and welcome to disagree but that doesn’t invalidate my point or my argument. I haven’t ignored anything unless it was irrelevant to the point (like the DRM arguments or the arguments about media that’s no longer available for purchase) and I’m not arguing the semantics of the words being used to describe the situation unless the person arguing against my point focuses on the semantics of those words as opposed to the actual crux of my argument. I’m not arguing against the legality of anything so that is also irrelevant. I haven’t deflected or ignored whether I have a moral argument or not, I’ve simply stated that it is also irrelevant to my point because, in an exchange, both parties have to gain something and agree to the exchange. That’s neither a moral nor a legal argument.
I’m glad you’re getting a chuckle but I suspect that your delight stems more from who you are as a person rather than anything I’ve actually said.
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).
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.
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.
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”
Yeah, I am going to have to disagree after reading though your over 50 posts here. You point is in tatters, you are grasping at straws and the funniest part is you seem to flat out ignore anything that does not help your argument. You have many times been semantic and then when proven wrong on semantics proceeded to say you are not arguing semantics. Same deal with legality, and when asked if you have a moral argument, you deflect or ignore.
Like I said, I am a fan of your posts here. I get a chuckle when people double down over and over.
You are free and welcome to disagree but that doesn’t invalidate my point or my argument. I haven’t ignored anything unless it was irrelevant to the point (like the DRM arguments or the arguments about media that’s no longer available for purchase) and I’m not arguing the semantics of the words being used to describe the situation unless the person arguing against my point focuses on the semantics of those words as opposed to the actual crux of my argument. I’m not arguing against the legality of anything so that is also irrelevant. I haven’t deflected or ignored whether I have a moral argument or not, I’ve simply stated that it is also irrelevant to my point because, in an exchange, both parties have to gain something and agree to the exchange. That’s neither a moral nor a legal argument.
I’m glad you’re getting a chuckle but I suspect that your delight stems more from who you are as a person rather than anything I’ve actually said.
Oh nice ad-hominem. That would be the correct way of doing ad-hominem by the way.
Oh and since your augment is not moral, semantic or legal how is it not also “irrelevant”?
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).
Yes, “telling” as if people can not understand basic veiled implications.
What was the implication then, if there was in fact one?
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.
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.
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”