Re: Thieves Philosophy 101

[Quantum_Cat <quantum-no-spam@cotse.com>]

Hiya, Cooter

 *>>
 *>>  *>It was not a conditional OR, it was a conditional AND,
 *>>
 *>> Odd... Conditional AND's generally have the word AND in them.  ;)  Let's
 *>see:

 *>In Math books YES, in Law Books No...

So replacing the OR in your statement with AND should make sense?  Let's try.

Deprive is defined to mean To withhold property of
another permanently AND for so extended a period
as to appropriate a major portion of its economic
value...

Hmmm... Redundant.  Permanent certainly would be that extended a period.  
Truthfully, the "spirit-of-the-definition" makes much more sense keeping the 
meaning of the word "or" as "or". ;)

 *>In Law Books the conditional AND is by recursive specification. Since the
 *>word Property is explicitly defined as a thing of value, and every example
 *>of the crime of theft, includes (and requires) the word property, then the
 *>conditional AND is included by the recursive specification of this crime...

You forget.  You don't like recursive specifications.  :D That invalidates 
everything!  

 *>When the law explicitly defines property as a {thing of value}, then this
 *>becomes a necessary condition throughout...

Uhh... Perhaps you've forgotten your previous position?  You know... Taking a 
copyright owners property without permission isn't theft because it has no value.

Now, you're arguing that all property has value.  Therefore, proving my point 
that stealing old Apple II software is theft.  LOL!

You're a fun guy, Cooter.  You weave and dodge and backpedal so much that you 
forget what your arguing about.  ;)

 *>>
 *>>  *>yet "given" that there is no value, theft can not occur...
 *>>
 *>> To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
 *>>
 *>> Suppose I write a poem.  It sucks.  It has no value, but it's my property.
 *>I
 *>> don't want anyone else to read it.  You steal it.  Without my permission.
 *>>

 *>In this case there would be a value, the value of your dignity. If I "stole"
 *>it and claimed that you wrote it you would be injured by humiliation. If I
 *>"stole" it and claimed it as my own, and received this humiliation upon
 *>myself, then you suffered no loss, thus a harmful effect did not occur to
 *>you, and since there was no harmful effect to you, there was no wrong to you
 *>of any kind, including the wrong of theft.

But to do so, you would have to read it.  You would have to do something contrary 
to my wishes.  This really hurts me.  ;)

Go no further, Cooter.  I'm convinced!  Stealing poetry or software is theft.  ;)

It was nice doing battle with you on this, Cooter.  We must try to find another 
subject to debate.  ;)

Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat