this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
687 points (91.8% liked)

memes

10163 readers
2391 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Let's say that no matter how much is "stolen" the peach seller has an infinite inventory. It never depletes, and it never goes bad.

The peach seller takes all the money, increases the selling price of the peach, and each peach you buy is a contract that allows the seller to kill your wife.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, you’re right, sorry, we can’t have a concept of intellectual property without Disney mandating we attach a murder clause into it. That’s certainly not stretching the argument.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just gonna paste my reply since I have an infinite supply of it. (Did I just steal from myself?)

Why singularly focus on the one point about a recent Disney event and completely disregard the other points as if they were now wholly tainted by your critique.

Ignore the single point about the reference to Disney then.

Please continue with the other points.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I’d be more likely to reply if you’d actually withdraw the argument. Say “You’re right, sorry, that was a dumb thing to focus on since it has nothing to do with the point about intellectual property. But the point stands.” Don’t just put the onus on me to “ignore the times I say something I can’t substantiate.”

Basically, if I know you’ll never walk something back from being convinced, you’re not arguing in good faith, and addressing the rest of it (something you can imagine I’ve wasted my time doing before in previous online discussions) is really not worth my effort.

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why does everyone bring the Disney thing into every discussion of piracy's moral footing?

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why singularly focus on the one point about a recent Disney event and completely disregard the other points as if they were now wholly tainted by your critique.

Ignore the single point about the reference to Disney then.

Please continue with the other points.

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The issue is not the criticism of Disney my brother. The issue is everyone trying to generalise and use it as a moral backbench to justify piracy when this is just an example of a case specific incident

My point is that it would be smarter to use the Disney argument to evaluate whether it would be sensible for one to purchase a Disney subscription rather than as an argument to justify piracy as a whole