2 ms·
I make a principle of exposing careless arguments even when they support a good cause. I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but Penny Arcade's "infinity dol
by cousin_it 17y ago
I make a principle of exposing careless arguments even when they support a good cause. I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but Penny Arcade's "infinity dollars" line didn't attack the outrageous fines of the RIAA, it (unfairly) attacked Microsoft's price point which is actually very affordable. Then the linked article took that already faulty argument and made a faulty logical connection on top. Think about it: even if Penny Arcade had been right, what does Microsoft's pricing model have to do with the article at all? Unless you subscribe to the view that all bad things in this world are intimately connected: "Microsoft, DRM, RIAA, boo".
- seertaak 17y agoExactly, it was poorly argued, replete with falsehoods, non-sequitors, and generally just muddled thought. It was almost juvenile. I think the anti-copyright campaigners would be wise to distance themselves from this brand of "argumentation". It weakens the argument against copyright.
- ggchappell 17y ago> I make a principle of exposing careless arguments even when they support a good cause. Good for you. (See also: http://www.liberalrevolt.com/article/the-10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty http://www.liberalrevolt.com/article/the-10-signs-of-intelle... )