Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
No, it's focusing on the actually important issue, that they have chosen a particular side and philosophy which excludes using the actual rule of law in their logic. Everything else in their argument is dependent on that, and I'm not interested in arguing with people on an emotional level.
|
How can you know that "everything in their argument is dependent on that" if, as you've admitted, you've ignored their argument?
I hope you don't believe that law is the same thing as morality! It is perfectly valid to discuss the morailty of actions without reference to the law.
The important issues are:
- Is copying wrong?
- If so, why are otherwise moral people happy to do it?
- If it's due to a failure to recognise the wrongness of the action, perhaps that
is, in fact, due to the word we attach to it, and a more emotive one such as theft could help get the point accross.
That's not arguing on an emotional level - just because the argument discusses emotional effects doesn't mean the argument is itself emotional.
/JB