Re: Thieves Philosophy 101

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Cooter.
>
>  *>In order for a case to to made every micro point must be fully considered
>  *>one-at-a-time.
>
> Well, I take issue with this point.  Exhaustive proofs, while effective, are
> rarely practical.  Oh.. And WTH is a "micro point"?  Another Cooter invention?
> ;)  Anyway, let's see where this leads.
>
>  *>The ONLY micro point covered here is the refutation of your claim that theft
>  *>does not require "value".
>
> And the one example you presented fell flat and discredited your assertion when I
> pointed out that it had the conditional OR, which invalidated your claim that
> theft required value.  That was sweet.  ;)

It was not a conditional OR, it was a conditional AND,
here is another conditional AND
Property shall mean anything of value...

>
>
> What can I say?  Theft usually DOES involve things of value. Value is not
> necessarily monetary.  Authors, painters, musicians, computer programmers may
> value their work, even if others don't.
>

So you concede this micro point?


>
>  *>I have refuted this micro point,
>
> Ooops... You forgot to actually refute my point, Cooter.  Back to the drawing
> board.  ;)
>
>  *>thus can construct the next micro point,
>  *>and eventually (after many micro points have been fully considered) my full
>  *>reasoning will be completely elaborated...
>
> Heh heh!  Earlier you state "In order for a case to to made every micro point
> must be fully considered" and now you claim "(after many micro points have been
> fully considered) my full reasoning will be completely elaborated..."
>

The line-of-reasoning is constructed entirely from the set
of micro points.

>
> So... How many micro points are required to make a case?  "Every Micro Point", or
> "Many Micro Points"?
>
> You certainly shoot yourself in the foot often enough.  Aren't you embarrased by
> it?  ;)
>
>  *>Here is the next micro point... Wrong requires a Harmful Effect,
>
> The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.
> 2000.
>
> wrong: NOUN :
> 1. a. An unjust or injurious act.
>    b. Something contrary to ethics or morality.
> 2. a. An invasion or a violation of another's legal rights.
>
> OK... Those appear to be harmful.
>
>  *>without a harmful effect, Wrong can not occur...
>
> 7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
>
> Well, laws are social convention.  This doesn't necessarily require harm, that I
> can see.
>

Try to find a specific counter-example where there
is clearly no harmful effect what-so-ever, and yet
there is a wrong...

>
>  *>Try to stay completely focused on this one micro point,
>
> Perhaps you should spit out your gum.  You don't think well when you have to
> think and chew at the same time.  ;)
>
>  *>and try to stick to reasoning...
>
> I plan too.  You're evidence that failing to reason just makes you look stupid.
> ;)
>
>  *>(you are getting much better at this.)
>
> You would too, if you would stop ignoring your debate opponents points and try to
> move the goal posts.  ;)
>
> Just a few more definitions to make sure we're on the same wavelength.  ;)
>
> theft: NOUN :
> 1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
>
> steal: TRANSITIVE VERB :
> 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
> INTRANSITIVE VERB :
> 1. To commit theft.
>
> larceny: NOUN : The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property
> with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft.
>
> You contend that value is required for theft.  I have shown that is not required.
>

According to the ultimate arbiter (the law itself) you
are incorrect on this point. Apparently you got
a little confused on the difference conditional OR
and conditional AND...

>
> You are now in the absurd position of claiming that there is no value in a
> copyright.
>

Not at all. Most often there is some value,
yet "given" that there is no value, theft can not
occur... Whether or not in any particular case
there is or is not value, is a whole other Micro
Point entirely... This Micro Point merely
asserts that Theft REQUIRES {Value}...
No Value, therefore No Theft...

>
> Stick THAT in your micro point and shove it.  ;)
>
>  *>>  *>(The point is that value must exist, or theft does not occur)
>  *>>
>  *>> Uh.. the point that must have slipped past you was the word "or", as in
>  *>> "permanently *or* for so extended"
>  *>>
>  *>> You surely know the meaning of the word, OR, don't you? Only one of those
>  *>> conditions has to be met.  Once a thief infringes on a copyright, it IS
>  *>> permanent.  Sort of like virginity.  Once lost, you don't get it back
>  *>again.  ;)
>
> Try examining this again.  Maybe it will clarify your error.
>
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat