• Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah, you’re right, sorry, we can’t have a concept of intellectual property without Disney mandating we attach a murder clause into it. That’s certainly not stretching the argument.

    • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Just gonna paste my reply since I have an infinite supply of it. (Did I just steal from myself?)

      Why singularly focus on the one point about a recent Disney event and completely disregard the other points as if they were now wholly tainted by your critique.

      Ignore the single point about the reference to Disney then.

      Please continue with the other points.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’d be more likely to reply if you’d actually withdraw the argument. Say “You’re right, sorry, that was a dumb thing to focus on since it has nothing to do with the point about intellectual property. But the point stands.” Don’t just put the onus on me to “ignore the times I say something I can’t substantiate.”

        Basically, if I know you’ll never walk something back from being convinced, you’re not arguing in good faith, and addressing the rest of it (something you can imagine I’ve wasted my time doing before in previous online discussions) is really not worth my effort.