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…

BTW - it should be interesting to note that no one is claiming that one form of theft is the same as other forms of theft, That is merely a straw man. Fraud is different from Embezzelment. Embezzelment is different from shoplifting. Shoplifting is different from copyright infringement. There are differences between…

“The reason some people are insistent on differentiating copyright infringement (copying someone’s work without permission) from theft (taking someone’s work without permission) is to examine whether or not the lack of physical deprivation of goods changes the character of the crime”

It doesn’t. The crime is the…

Yet you continue arguing the issue with others (who don’t bring up the issue of permission). It would appear the claim of trying to evade the issue of PERMISSION (which is what causes your ‘principle’ to fall apart like the proverbial house of cards) is indeed accurate.

“you are directly depriving someone else of their property - in this case their money.”

Uh, NO. Fraud is NOT limited to simply directly depriving someone else of property (money).

“it’d be really cool if Bob did allow everyone to use his car.”

Except YOUR principle is that Bob giving permission to ONE person is the same as Bob giving permission to EVERYONE. You EVADED that point - because THAT is a complete FALSEHOOD - ie where your principle fails. It is a fact you realize NO ONE will agree…

“I ignore the point because I don’t see piracy as theft.”

Because you see the life and effort of others as YOURS to dispose of as YOU see fit. YOU see youself as master - THEY as your slaves.

You “ignore the point” that they are NOT your property.

“Point the first) you can’t own people or distribute people freely.”

Disposing of an individual’s body and/or effort absent that individual’s permission is the claim to the life and effort of that individual. It is the claim that they are your property. That is the claim YOU are making upon others.

“Sharing copies of…

“Then sharing games of any kind should be illegal because Devs don’t explicitly give you permission to say, give a game to someone you know personally.”

One could certainly make that argument in cases where such permissions are not explicit (most games these days, there are explicit permissions and prohibitions). One…