Re: Thieves Philosophy 101

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

Hiya, Cooter.

 *>> 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,

Odd... Conditional AND's generally have the word AND in them.  ;)  Let's see:

"To withhold property of another permanently or for so extended a period"

Nope.  No AND.  Boy, when you're wrong, you go all the way.  ;)

 *>here is another conditional AND Property shall mean anything of value...

And?  That's a boolean operator, Cooter.  It needs another symbol to work.  ;)

 *>> 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?

While theft involves stealing someones property or depriving of their rights, 
that doesn't mean they value that property or their rights.  Still this doesn't 
support your assertion that theft REQUIRES an object of value to be stolen.

 *>>  *>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.

That says nothing, and didn't answer my question.  The question could be 
rephrased as "Does your line-of-reasoning consist of "every micro point", or 
"many micro points".  You claimed both.  You're inconsistent. ;)

 *>> 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...

Do your own work, Cooter.  Digging up evidence might be pleasant change from 
simple assertions.  ;)

 *>> 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. 

Yet the example you provided didn't back up your assertion.  Try again.  ;)

 *>Apparently you got a little confused on the difference conditional OR and
 *>conditional AND...

I think not.  LOL!  You should look for words that begin with one of these "A".  
The next letter would be an "N", and the last one a "D".  ;)

 *>> 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,

But of course, you want to be the one to decide it's value.  ;)

 *>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.

That is indeed theft.  ;)

 *>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...

But of course, you'll ignore my point yet again and repeat your assertion ad 
nauseum.  ;)


Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat