Quote:
Originally Posted by dsuden
Thanks, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Comparing stealing medicine to save a life with stealing a textbook to save a few bucks. Using convoluted logic will never justify doing what you know is wrong.
Here's a homework assignment for you. Every time you feel yourself tempted to invent a justification; every time you catch yourself concocting analogies to justify something, stop and think about what you're doing. And especially, be hesitant to post those sorts of arguments publicly, because they look like just what they are.
|
Actually I was responding to your position and attempting to explain why it's very difficult to argue in terms of black and white / right and wrong in absolute terms, which is what you were doing I felt.
My example of 'stealing medicine' was an example of why stealing isn't always bad - and therefore not subject to the type of reductionist logic that you're espousing. (Law says stealing is bad, therefore all stealing is bad, therefore... blah blah)
It had nothing, strictly speaking, to do with copyright - the comparison is yours to make, or not - which is my point. (Though there are some pretty compelling parallels with patent law there)...
p.s. You'll find that I generally think my posts through reasonably well (for content, spelling and grammar) - even if they're not always understood in the spirit in which they're intended...