4 ms·

"Felled by a freak storm' is a pretty ignorant mischaracterization of people deliberately hacking down trees to see the statue. That said: I agree with the the

by iamdave 12y ago

"Felled by a freak storm' is a pretty ignorant mischaracterization of people deliberately hacking down trees to see the statue. That said: I agree with the theme of consternation over outmoded content distribution methods, not adapting with changing demand in the market place is a good way to becoming outmoded yourself.

teddyh 12y ago
What? The freak storm is supposed to represent the technological development of digital copying itself – I should know, I came up with the analogy. You stop mischaracterizing the analogy. It is an analogy, not a model. Or are you implying that the developers of digital technology did so merely to copy cheaply those things which were previously hard and lossy to copy? (I doubt it.) I.e. what is your actual criticism of my argument?
- sbarre 12y ago
  Your analogy is still flawed, but I think you know that and you're just being specious.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - iamdave 12y ago
      don’t try to earn cheap rhetorical points by misconstruing part of analogies and then taking them too far That isn't what's happening. Your analogy was criticized, and now instead of taking it as an opportunity to refine your point and move the ball forward on a worthwhile conversation, you're digging in and demanding everyone just agree with you because you spoke up. I even agreed with you on the merit and overall point of your post, but pointed out that calling people willfully distributing content to others who don't have to pay for it isn't a "freak storm". It's deliberate action.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        iamdave 12y ago
        I did. Twice. Sorry if you do not like people dissenting with your analogies but I don't owe you or anyone else here blind compliance with viewpoints. If I don't attack the argument and attack the speaker, well then we've got ourselves an ad hominem don't we? And what good is that? I stated your analogy mischaracterizes an act of nature with willful and deliberate actions of people copying and redistributing content but agreed that markets need to evolve their distribution channels. I don't owe you anything more than that. Have a nice day.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        Sxw1212 12y ago
        Can we stop arguing? How about somebody sneaks a 3D scanner in (somehow) and shares the design for people to print themselves. Or just takes a picture. I think we get the point though.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by iamdave 12y ago

teddyh 12y ago

What? The freak storm is supposed to represent the technological development of digital copying itself – I should know, I came up with the analogy. You stop mischaracterizing the analogy. It is an analogy, not a model. Or are you implying that the developers of digital technology did so merely to copy cheaply those things which were previously hard and lossy to copy? (I doubt it.) I.e. what is your actual criticism of my argument?

sbarre 12y ago
Your analogy is still flawed, but I think you know that and you're just being specious.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - iamdave 12y ago
    don’t try to earn cheap rhetorical points by misconstruing part of analogies and then taking them too far That isn't what's happening. Your analogy was criticized, and now instead of taking it as an opportunity to refine your point and move the ball forward on a worthwhile conversation, you're digging in and demanding everyone just agree with you because you spoke up. I even agreed with you on the merit and overall point of your post, but pointed out that calling people willfully distributing content to others who don't have to pay for it isn't a "freak storm". It's deliberate action.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - iamdave 12y ago
        I did. Twice. Sorry if you do not like people dissenting with your analogies but I don't owe you or anyone else here blind compliance with viewpoints. If I don't attack the argument and attack the speaker, well then we've got ourselves an ad hominem don't we? And what good is that? I stated your analogy mischaracterizes an act of nature with willful and deliberate actions of people copying and redistributing content but agreed that markets need to evolve their distribution channels. I don't owe you anything more than that. Have a nice day.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        Sxw1212 12y ago
        Can we stop arguing? How about somebody sneaks a 3D scanner in (somehow) and shares the design for people to print themselves. Or just takes a picture. I think we get the point though.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]