3 ms·
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 critic
by 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 agoI 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 agoCan 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.