Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
I'm afraid that I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who calls me a sophist, and falsely accuses me of using the argument from authority.
|
I didn't call you a sophist. I did, absolutely, call your
argument that IP isn't "property" because it isn't tangible, and therefore, that copyright infringement cannot be "theft,"
sophistry. You're a lawyer; claiming that you're offended by that seems a bit over the top. If you didn't know it already, you learned sophistical arguing in your 1L year. It's a tool in the box, and I'm more than a little surprised to see you behaving as though I called you a pedophile.
Nor was my statement about the usage by you of your authority untrue in any sense of THAT word, either. You flatly stated, in your post, "I'm a lawyer." You then proceeded, in that post, to state, not two sentences later, that:
Quote:
|
What everyone calls "intellectual property" is NOT actually property. As a legal matter, it cannot be stolen (unless, of course, there is some other law specifically establishing some form of intellectual property as "property" for purposes of the statutes against theft. I believe that there are some concerning trade secrets. But in the case of copyright, there are none that I am aware of.) (red emphasis added).
|
I fail to see how you can assert that my saying that you were arguing from a position of authority can remotely be construed as
false. You advised everyone that you were a lawyer; and you then provided what is essentially a legal opinion (that IP isn't property, and hence cannot be stolen). How is that not arguing from the imprimatur of authority? It would be one thing to have that discussion among your fellow lawyers; but amongst laypeople?
Of course it has the imprimatur of authority! If not--why else did you say it? People responded to that particular post, saying, IIRC, "good to have it from the horse's mouth," in other words, dispositive,
because YOU were deemed to know the law and, therefore, your assertion(s) were beyond argument.
I am not interested in ad hominem attacks
whatsoever. Apparently what I consider plain old logical debate some people consider vitriol. {shrug}. However, I certainly never "name-called," unlike MANY on this thread who've called me a
number of things. Nor did I ever imply that you are NOT a lawyer; you certainly
know that "assuming arguendo" means, "assuming for the sake of discussion." It means,
contrary to your attempt to get people here to think that I insulted you, that I was taking your statement at face value; I was, in fact, NOT questioning your assertion that you were a lawyer.
I said I was done with this thread and I meant it--but you of
all people know that saying your argument was sophistry means naught more than "it's misleading," which is
hardly grounds for a duel with pistols at sunrise, and the term "assuming arguendo" is, equally, no intimation whatsoever that you are NOT an attorney. Really, sir; you doth protest too much.
You are going to lengths--more than once--to inflame people's opinions of what I've said,
rather than to address the cases I cited or the precedents I named. I attacked your position vigorously; I attacked you not at all, and I know you are quite cognizant of the distinction.