This is “The Fappening” for sports. Except here they rationalize publishing the stolen pictures.

In regard to my last lines: “AW’s goal is to reduce the punishment for a violation of rights. And he doesn’t care WHAT irrational appeal he has to make in order to try to reach this goal”

.

“it’s not that the law doesn’t apply or is obsolete, merely that it was and continues to be applied incorrectly, out of proportion to the damages inflicted”

The “legal environment” states differently. Who is AW to contradict these things? He is not an Authority. As such, he is to be dismissed, as he dismisses anyone…

AW can evade the argument if he likes. He’s evaded so many others, why should he stop that irrational practice now? As stated, whatever violation is being discussed, be it slavery, theft, etc, the PRINCIPLE is the same. That is the fact AW is attempting to evade with his latest fallacy - the Resort to Ridicule. That…

Aries - note the facts AW is trying to evade:

Bob is in possession of a product.

Aries - AW has you arguing a point which is irrelevant. In regard to an individual’s right to his product and the violation of that right, it is immaterial whether that product is “infinitely reproducible” or is “physically limited”.

AW claims:

Paragraph 1 - long ad hom

“NOONE cares about your CALLING everything a FALLACY”

You’ve already demonstrated you don’t “care” about committing logical fallacies. But THANK you for explicitly admitting the fact. Always nice when a person self-invalidates the rationality of their own arguments. :)

“I’m not here to discuss…

“There is a difference between an infinitely reproducible good and a physically limited one”

Not when it comes disposing of the product of the effort of another there isn’t. Given that it is THEIR effort, THEIR product, -not- YOURS, you require their permission to even come in contact with it. Absent that permission,…

“The fallacy of conflating copying with taking leads to other problems in our understanding of piracy”

What do you know - AW has NO problem saying other people’s arguments are logical fallacies. But when others say HIS arguments are logical fallacies, well that’s just -wrong-! LOLOLOL

“for instance, the absurd notion…

“You seem to think you live in a vacuum where the only laws that apply are ones you make up for yourself”

And another of your logical fallacies. This time, straw man. The claim isn’t that laws don’t exist or apply. The claim is that laws can be judged by the facts of reality. In other words, like ALL ideas, laws are…

“declaring any authority or expert who disagrees with you irrelevant or illegitimate”

And now you ad ad hom to your repetroir of logical fallacies. What a surprise!

““Opinions” of a judge, written as an official legal ruling, are actually legally important in this world”

Of course, that doesn’t make them valid - as slavery being legal demonstrates. In other words, even when it comes to “important” legal…

“You need to actually explain why the authority is wrong.”

Thanks for reversing the burden of proof on top of all your other fallacies. :)

One has to identify the -reason- the authority is right. Point to facts of reality which support his conclusion. Either the Authority explains it to you or, if you are speaking on…

“Yes, citing an objective source like the dictionary is an argument”

Because the dictionary is God. It can’t be wrong. It is infallable. NO ONE can question its ideas. They are indisputable TRUTH. Thus if anyone dares to challenge a definition, one need only point TO the dictionary to PROVE them wrong.

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH…

“Your definition of theft is irrelevant, the legal rulings and opinions and statutes matter. I don’t care what definition you provide if it’s contradictory to the legal definition.”

Thank you for so succinctly making the SAME fallacious Appeal to Authority slave owners made to the Abolitionists. One simply CANNOT…

“I disagree with your definitions and terminology. Even a dictionary defines fraud as “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.””

You have stated you disagree. But, as I said, simply saying “Nu uh” is not an argument against the definition. Nor is simply pointing to a dictionary.…

“There’s a difference between saying the two actions are identical, and saying the two actions are both crimes.”

Straw man. Never claimed they are “identical” (which is why I explicitly made the differentiation between ‘fraud’, ‘embezzelment’, and ‘copyright infringment’ - so that such a claim should be demonstrably…

“Fraud at the end of the day involves some kind of loss on your part”

No. Fraud is contact with you or your effort absent your consent. It is different from a lie in that there is no contact with you or your effort in regard to a lie. That is why fraud is a form of theft where lying is not.

(BTW - this claim: “which…