Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1. You say that Ayn Rand thinks that people have a right to " invention/IP in general as opposed to specific kinds of inventions/IP," but both Eiuol and I agree this is a straw man. Then you later say this isn't relevant, and that it doesn't matter, and that "don't yet have any objective reason that I can see to draw distinctions between" the two claims? I'm confused here, why would it not matter if Ayn Rand's theory gives us a right to all pencil sharpeners in general, or to a specific kind of pencil sharpener we only invented? And where is the evidence for the former over the latter?

 

2. You seem to think I'm not aware that all IP advocates have differing views. Surely you intentionally interperet me wrongly here. (Why do this?) But who on the pro-IP side believes that someone has a right to abstract concepts in general, as you seem to be arguing, rather than specific inventions? And if so, why can't we just solve this by saying, okay then, we support the latter rather than the former. Cause that's all I take them to mean (no need to be unreasonable.)

 

3. Rand's theory doesn't allow for independent discovery, true enough, but then surely you recognize the difference between arguing over whether independent discovery should be allowed is less than adequate for a case against IP in general?

 

As far as your secondary argument that all discovery is in some sense independent, well again, this is true enough. Although I would quibble with your claim that all ideas come into the mind through volitional forces, at least you seem to be saying something like: you have to independently think about your ideas, so even copying is in a sense an independent act. And sure. But again, surely you recognize the difference between being the one to invent Pencil Sharpener A or B, and copying the design of either from a schematic. It is upon this differentiation that the concept IP recognizes the act of creation or invention as a property right. So sure, there is always "independent discovery1," in the sense that someone is still using their mind themselves, but there is not always "independent discovery2" in the sense of someone is creating a pattern that didn't exist before. When we say "independent discovery" we mean independent discovery2.

 

Consider a similarity in an argument we've seen time and again, that coercion isn't really "involuntary" because the coerced still has free will after all. Well sure, and in that sense, the victim still has voluntary choice. But we can differentiate between "voluntary1" as no coercion being present, and "voluntary2" as choices one has within a coercive relationship, and it is that differentiation between the two that the concept of aggression recognizes. When we speak of aggression as involuntary, we mean voluntary1.

 

4. Similarly, you can interperet my "not caring" comment in two ways. Not caring1 means I lack personal interest, and not caring2 means we have not been provided with a reason to regard the presence of a mind-body split as significant to the argument. Obviously (at least I thought it was obvious) I meant not caring2.

 

As far as I can understand, you think Rand's emphasis on mental labor creates a split between a person's mind and body, and that this split is wrong. I'm just trying to understand. What do you meant by split, and why is this wrong? Do you mean simply that it differentiates between mental and physical labor? Certainly there is such a differentiation, and what is wrong with pointing it out?

 

5. Certainly the concept of property includes material values, for the reasons you mentioned. But I don't see how you reason from this to non-material property being excluded from consideration. Can you put this in syllogistic form? How exactly is the conclusion "non-material values are not included [in the concept 'property']" reached?

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a link with a post I like a lot, in terms of supporting IP. I point you to 8, 12, and 13 for arguments you have made. By the way, I agree with the characterization of anti-IP as (implicit) intellectual communism.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/13692.aspx

 

Hahahaha, well... being unable to help myself (I like ideas, and knowing what I'm talking about where I can), I did go ahead and check out that link. And I... well... uhm... did you read it?

I mean, again, I really am not going to continue to participate in the game where I take that linked essay seriously, and attempt to delve into it in depth, only for you to shoot back at me with some one or two liner about how that's not really what you mean, and strawmen and so forth. But did you read the essay before you linked to it? You may wish to read it again.

It is worlds apart from Rand's ideas. And I know, I know, he uses the term "intellectual property" and says that he is "for" it, so you account it as all being good, I suppose. But did you know that he rejects patents right off the bat, for instance? And yes, he considers patents "idea property"... (doesn't he know that's not what you're talking about!?) And he believes -- as any principled defender of IP should -- that the term of copyright ought to be "as far as perpetuity"?

But no more analysis out of me, lest I get sucked into doing the very thing I just now resolved not to do. But yeah, I do highly recommend people to read that essay. Read all of the essays linked over the course of this thread. Read every post in this thread. And then think about it, to one's best ability, and over time. To me, this issue is now absolutely clear, but I suppose that the individual reader's mileage will vary.

I don't know that I have more to add, or that I will again unless I see some vital new aspect that must be addressed. So thanks for the conversation, and calling me a communist and all that. I'll remember such kindnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So thanks for the conversation, and calling me a communist and all that. I'll remember such kindnesses.

Uhh, no I didn't. I think overall, anti-IP is implicitly intellectual communism. That doesn't translate to you being a communist, but it does translate into you not being aware of the links between ideas in the same way I am aware. After all, I assume we don't have the same knowledge. The difference is the idea of anti-IP being bad versus you being bad. I think anti-IP is bad (in other words, incorrect as well), and for that reason, I want to dissuade you from that position. I used the "Sergei is a communist" thing to represent a position, not to represent you as some kind of communist. I do not appreciate though the sarcastic remarks about me being funny the post you made earlier.

 

I read the link, yes. I reviewed it before I posted. There are points I disagree on - I think patents are legit, and I am undecided on perpetuity (I lean towards no perpetuity). I agree with the main idea. It's still at least agreeing that IP is legitimate, even if I disagree on what should fall under IP. That is in contrast to you saying IP is totally illegitimate.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be my last post in this thread; I'm off to join Thomas for a vacation on Bali. (That may or may not be true.) My temper just won't take this conversation any longer, not as it is, and I think that my position has been sufficiently expressed.

What follows is a *highly* edited version of what I originally intended to post, having taken a couple of days to try to calm myself...
 

1. You say that Ayn Rand thinks that people have a right to " invention/IP in general as opposed to specific kinds of inventions/IP," but both Eiuol and I agree this is a straw man.

 
Your quote of me is neither a quote of me nor a paraphrase. Instead you're taking a flawed description of my stance almost verbatim from Eiuol, and then ostensibly attributing it to me. So, just like he was being (apparently unintentionally) ironic in accusing me of "dropping context" while dropping all relevant context, you are strawmanning me for the purpose of accusing me of strawmanning.

It is apparently inappropriate of me to find that funny, but I do.
 

2. You seem to think I'm not aware that all IP advocates have differing views.

 
You were talking about "the pro-IP case" as though there is only one, and that's what I was responding to; I wasn't responding to what I think you might or might not be "aware" of, but rather what you were saying, and your arguments.

There is, instead of "the pro-IP case," Rand's case for IP, Spooner's case for IP, Eiuol's case for IP (if it exists), and so on. These things are not the same, and none of them can lay claim to being the singular pro-IP case. When I make replies, I'm replying to a specific case for IP -- which might seem like a "straw man" if that case doesn't happen to be yours. But when I purport to talk about "Rand's case," I'm actually talking about Rand's case, which isn't necessarily "the case" if you conflate "the case" with your own.
 

Surely you intentionally interperet me wrongly here. (Why do this?)

 
This is vile, and hopefully beneath you.
 

But who on the pro-IP side believes that someone has a right to abstract concepts in general, as you seem to be arguing, rather than specific inventions?

 
The pencil sharpener is a specific invention. It does not alter the case to then say "a specific kind of pencil sharpener"; that is not a principled clarification, but a dodge. "The pencil sharpener" is as "general" and as "specific" as "the wheel," which was a specific reference point for understanding Ayn Rand's views, as I've demonstrated previously and directed you to in my last post. So who believes that a person can own "the wheel"? Ayn Rand does, as far as I can tell. I'd guess that means she also believes a person can own "the pencil sharpener," which neither seems to me more specific or more general, qua abstraction.

Furthermore, IP over a "specific kind of pencil sharpener" is also a "right to an abstract concept," which is ultimately the only thing that matters to my examples, and to my case, as I tried to make clear in an earlier post.
 

And if so, why can't we just solve this by saying, okay then, we support the latter rather than the former. Cause that's all I take them to mean (no need to be unreasonable.)

 
I agreed to that before you asked:
 

But if they both have to have built "the same kind of pencil sharpener" (whatever that actually means, and however we would implement that in reality) for my scenario to explore the issue that I intend to explore with it, then that's fine. Sure, let it be "the same kind of pencil sharpener" for those who think that matters.

 

3. Rand's theory doesn't allow for independent discovery, true enough

 
Yes. So, when we're discussing possible contradictions within Rand's theory (as I am), we can't rescue her case with "independent discovery." That would just be introducing a different contradiction elsewhere.
 

...but then surely you recognize the difference between arguing over whether independent discovery should be allowed is less than adequate for a case against IP in general?

 
"IP in general" is only as good as the specific theory we adopt to account for it. If Rand's theory is flawed, then it's flawed, and some other better theory is necessary if we want to reach IP... but then again, why do we want to reach IP? It's as though you're taking IP for granted, then looking for the right incantation to get there, assuming that something must work somewhere. Obviously that approach poses some problems for the person who is questioning IP, and the conversation that follows. (Oh, you don't like Rand? Try Spooner? No, that doesn't fit? How about half-Rand/half-Spooner/with a dash of Rothbard? There are thousands of possible combinations!)

And when it comes to incorporating some other, non-Objectivist argument for IP (or any given aspect of an argument) into Objectivism, we have to be very careful because these concepts have actual meaning; the integrations required are numerous and far-reaching. We can't just swap out Rand's theory of IP with Spooner's theory or something, and pretend like the edges must line up, somehow. If Rand's theory is to be accepted or rejected, it needs to be on the basis of whether or not it is fully consistent with every more essential/fundamental/foundational matter -- and that's the same standard for any other theory of IP.

 

As far as your secondary argument that all discovery is in some sense independent, well again, this is true enough.

 
Yeah, I like to think so.
 

Although I would quibble with your claim that all ideas come into the mind through volitional forces...

 
You don't believe thought or focus to be volitional in every case? Or you don't think such thought is always the source of a person having an idea of something? So how do such ideas get into a person's mind, then?
 

...at least you seem to be saying something like: you have to independently think about your ideas, so even copying is in a sense an independent act. And sure. But again, surely you recognize the difference between being the one to invent Pencil Sharpener A or B, and copying the design of either from a schematic. It is upon this differentiation that the concept IP recognizes the act of creation or invention as a property right.

 
I do not agree that you speak for "the concept IP." I do not agree that there is one such concept, on account of all of the various arguments that actually exist. Rather, there is IP as conceptualized by Rand, and etc. I take this, instead, as you speaking for yourself and your own concept of IP.

For myself, I don't think that this distinction matters. I think if you come to understand "chair" by observing actual chairs, or schematics, or textbooks, or a dream you had once, or whatever, and then you have that idea, it is "your idea" in every sense that matters. I think the chair you build based on that idea is your chair.
 

As far as I can understand, you think Rand's emphasis on mental labor creates a split between a person's mind and body, and that this split is wrong.

 
Not her "emphasis"; her specific claims. Her claims are wrong. With respect to my pencil sharpener example, Rand would say of Garfield's pencil sharpener that "the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value." But this neither describes what Garfield actually does (which is both physical and mental labor), nor the source of the value of that pencil sharpener. And yet, that is the content and meaning of her argument.

 

What do you meant by split, and why is this wrong? Do you mean simply that it differentiates between mental and physical labor? Certainly there is such a differentiation, and what is wrong with pointing it out?

 
When Rand posits that mental labor is alone responsible for the value of material values -- values which actually require both mental and physical labor to exist -- she is wrong, and operating on a notion that treats mind and body as separate causal agents, "splitting" them. She treats the man who "copies" as providing physical labor sans mind. That doesn't exist in reality.

 

Edited to add: Even if we were to go full Star Trek, with matter replicators such that to have a copy of any given existent, you only would need to push a button (and 3d printing appears to me to bring us a substantial step towards such a future), that would still be a mindful activity.  The objects of replication would still be property, and they would belong to the person who owned the replicator and pressed the button.
 

5. Certainly the concept of property includes material values, for the reasons you mentioned. But I don't see how you reason from this to non-material property being excluded from consideration. Can you put this in syllogistic form? How exactly is the conclusion "non-material values are not included [in the concept 'property']" reached?

 
I'm not "reasoning from" Rand's case for property to exclude anything. Non-material values aren't included in Rand's case for the concept "property" because she specifically states "material values" and not "non-material values," and because that is the case that she makes (and neither does she there make a case for "non-material values"). Those are her words, her argument, and I take them as written.

In "Man's Rights," she makes the case for material values as property and it's solid, in my opinion. That's why I agree with her that property is material values. In "Patents and Copyrights," she attempts to make a case for non-material values as property (whatever Eiuol believes), and I think it's flawed. The two specific cases she makes contradict one another. Her latter argument depends on a mind-body split. I don't accept that case, and I argue that neither should you.

So it's not a case of deducing that non-material values aren't property from axioms or anything like that. It's that an inductive case for material values as property was made, and was good, and an inductive case for non-material values as property was made, and was not. I'm not saying that no such case can ever be made, though I am now exceedingly dubious of it, but I am saying that no such case has been made in this thread, or in the linked essays I've read, or seem to exist in the minds of the men who purport to argue "for IP."

I am also saying that IP cannot coexist with the Objectivist beliefs on property, rights, and so on. Given IP, then most of the rest of the Objectivst Ethics and Politics will have to go, as contradictions do not exist in reality (though they're free to exist in our minds, if we are not careful).
 

Uhh, no I didn't. I think overall, anti-IP is implicitly intellectual communism. That doesn't translate to you being a communist, but it does translate into you not being aware of the links between ideas in the same way I am aware. After all, I assume we don't have the same knowledge. The difference is the idea of anti-IP being bad versus you being bad. I think anti-IP is bad (in other words, incorrect as well), and for that reason, I want to dissuade you from that position. I used the "Sergei is a communist" thing to represent a position, not to represent you as some kind of communist.

 
Yes it's true that you used "Sergei is a communist" to "represent a position" -- the position that you equated (wrongly) to my views. No such reference was even needed. You didn't need to name any characters "Sergei." You didn't need to mention "Das Kapital" to explore a position. But those were the choices you made, and presumably for a reason. You say that doesn't translate to calling me a communist.

And then you linked to an essay which you believe describes and argues against my views (again: your flawed understanding of them) as "intellectual communism," and you go out of your way to specify that you endorse that position (again: unnecessary). But you claim that doesn't translate to calling me a communist.

So... you're not saying I'm a communist, you're just saying that I... believe in communism and... am advocating communism... kind of like a guy named Sergei who has come to having essentially communist positions by reading Das Kapital... so... uh... wait...

I get it. You're saying I'm a communist, sure, but I don't understand that I'm a communist.
 

I do not appreciate though the sarcastic remarks about me being funny the post you made earlier.

 
That was the most charitable option, but you're right, not the most honest one. In all truth, there is nothing funny about how this thread has progressed (or how it started, for that matter), and the sum total of it has greatly upset me. I would catalog all of the times that I've made an argument to have it ignored, asked a question that went unanswered, raised an example to have it dismissed, been unfairly accused of straw manning or etc., had my remarks taken out of context, and so on, but I do not have the time or the stomach to review it.
 

I read the link, yes. I reviewed it before I posted. There are points I disagree on...

 
You disagree on certain "points," but how do you think he reaches those "points"? Do you think you share the same underlying premises? Do you think he has arrived at the "points" you believe yourself to agree with in some proper fashion?
 

...I think patents are legit, and I am undecided on perpetuity (I lean towards no perpetuity). I agree with the main idea. It's still at least agreeing that IP is legitimate, even if I disagree on what should fall under IP. That is in contrast to you saying IP is totally illegitimate.

 
This is awful, Eiuol. You're saying that you just like that he says "I support IP," while ignoring every actual aspect of his argument -- where it comes from, where it goes, what it entails, the meaning he intends with the terms he employs, anything. This is... I'm horrified to see it in action, and never thought I would, but this is actually what those Objectivists who disparage "libertarians" are arguing against. You're pretending as though all those who promote "intellectual property" somehow are fighting for the same thing.

They're not.

But what does that matter to you? You've accepted IP as true, independent of any particular argument for IP, and so the details don't matter. It's unattached from any particular reasons or arguments, and these essays may be wheeled in for temporary structural support, as needed, for any particular argument.  (And they may be ditched as easily if they prove inconvenient.) Patents proper? Improper? Copyrights (however these terms are even meant)? Objective implementation? Meh. All that matters is someone saying "IP is valid" whatever that actually means to the person saying it.

You need to seriously reflect here, Eiuol. Not for the sake of IP, which is almost a non-issue when compared to the absolutely corrupted methodology you appear to be employing here, and the disaster it courts.

Edited by DonAthos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You didn't need to mention "Das Kapital" to explore a position."
I'm sorry for using literary flair when telling a story? No, I'm not sorry, you're just blowing it out of proportion, since it seems like we've had a misunderstanding. All I *said* is that I think anti-IP implicitly leads to a communistic standard of thought and creativity. I did not say *you* believe that the implications are *valid*. That is worlds apart from saying "DonAthos, you're a communist!". That's just saying "DonAthos, this is where the logical end goes!" If you take offense to that, I don't know what to say. And by the way, the name Sergei, it's not because it sounds Russian. I used the first names of classical composers. Same with Franz and Wolfgang.

Regarding that link, how is it different, fundamentally, than what I am saying? Differences, yes, but there is more similarity with what I'm saying than what you're saying. So, I offer it to think about. And if I misunderstood it, explain it to me!  

I can't say anything else really, the other points you made are making it look like we've gone far off from discussion into a personal matter. Please presume my intellectual honesty here, I just can't respond to each quote bomb you make and satisfy all your questions even to my own satisfaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-IP is intellectual communism IF we accept that ideas are actual, tangible values.

 

No inventor on Earth could eat the concept of food; why are we attempting to change the metaphysically given?  Furthermore, if one man does have a right to IP, then there must be a way to implement that without violating ANYONE else's rights. I defy you to show such.

 

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25747

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your quote of me is neither a quote of me nor a paraphrase. Instead you're taking a flawed description of my stance almost verbatim from Eiuol, and then ostensibly attributing it to me. So, just like he was being (apparently unintentionally) ironic in accusing me of "dropping context" while dropping all relevant context, you are strawmanning me for the purpose of accusing me of strawmanning.

It is apparently inappropriate of me to find that funny, but I do.

 

Well duh I am quoting Eiuol there. Why do you think I'm quoting you, where do I attribute this to you as a quote? I don't see why you even got that idea. But that is your position, right? You even confirm this 3 quotes later, I mean this is part of the discussion, right, that you think IP gives you a right to general ideas (like "pencil sharpeners" and "the wheel," rather than say, "this specific pencil sharpener I invented," or "this specific kind of wheel that I invented"), so I'm not see how you think this is me strawmanning you, or why you thought I was quoting you?

 

Incidentally, it is kind of funny because you said "ostensibly attributing it to me," and the word "ostensibly" means "seemingly, but not actual."

 

You were talking about "the pro-IP case" as though there is only one, and that's what I was responding to; I wasn't responding to what I think you might or might not be "aware" of, but rather what you were saying, and your arguments.

There is, instead of "the pro-IP case," Rand's case for IP, Spooner's case for IP, Eiuol's case for IP (if it exists), and so on. These things are not the same, and none of them can lay claim to being the singular pro-IP case. When I make replies, I'm replying to a specific case for IP -- which might seem like a "straw man" if that case doesn't happen to be yours. But when I purport to talk about "Rand's case," I'm actually talking about Rand's case, which isn't necessarily "the case" if you conflate "the case" with your own.

Well obvously I know that there are more than one positions on IP, it seems rather intentionally dishonest of you to pretend like I am unaware of this. I don't see why you have to act like this, I mean, it doesn't help clarify our knowledge of anything? It's not like I'm attacking you or anything, I mean what is the point? Of course there is part of "the case for IP" that is similar to all these writers, which is what I was referring to, that inventors have a right to "specific kinds of inventions/IP as opposed to invention/IP in general." (Please note the proceeding has been a quote of Eiuol and not of Don Athos. Do I need to register a trademark on this quote with Eiuol here?) So again, without all the confusion, isn't all the case for IP is saying is that inventors have a right to "specific kinds of inventions/IP as opposed to invention/IP in general," and if so, isn't it a strawman to accuse them of wanting to own "the wheel" or "all pencil sharpeners," and where is the evidence for the latter claim in, say, Ayn Rand in particular? You once again assert that she believes this, but also once again, haven't provided a reason why we should think this. You claim that there is no distinction we can make between specific kinds of inventions and whole categories of inventions later on in your post, but these claims fail to convince. Do you recognize any difference between owning a specific pattern of a pencil sharpener and owning all pencil sharpeners in general?

 

This is vile, and hopefully beneath you.

What's with the rage, man, maybe a vacation in Bali would do you good at this point? Have a mai tai for me and forget about IP for now then. I guess there's no point in giving you feeback on the rest of your ideas (even though you're the one that asked for it in the first place... geez)

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well duh I am quoting Eiuol there. Why do you think I'm quoting you, where do I attribute this to you as a quote? I don't see why you even got that idea.

 

LOL.

Well... I guess I can stick around for a round of this! :D It's... less argument at this point, and more like target shooting, but what the heck. It seems like you want a fight for some reason, and I see no call to be struck and not swing back.

In the first place, my apologies that I went through so much trouble to be polite to you with my last post. I can see now that you don't deserve such courtesy, and that you read that as some sort of an invitation to nastiness. In the second place... you don't see how I got the idea that you were quoting me? Really?

What can possibly explain your astounding lack of insight? Here was your quote:

 

You say that Ayn Rand thinks that people have a right to " invention/IP in general as opposed to specific kinds of inventions/IP,"...

 

So let's break this down, genius. You lead off with "you say that"... so I expect you're going to finish with something that "I say." Right? And then you introduce a full-on quote. I'm expecting my own words thrown back at me, 'cause, in the interest of intellectual honesty (more on that later), you would want to represent my thoughts as fairly as possible. Take it "straight from the horse's mouth," which is what I would do (and do do... heh.... I said do do!) for you. When I want to demonstrate your poor arguments, there is nothing better than to quote what you have to say verbatim and then respond to it directly.  And since we're talking about "straw men," and you're so sensitive to that issue, you presumably know that someone else's paraphrase of my argument is not necessarily my argument (especially when I'm in the midst of a prolonged disagreement with that person).

But nope. I get Eiuol's words instead, without any indication or citation or anything! And that's potentially an issue, not just for the sake of the fairness of your own argument (which I know you don't care about, but still), but also in representing me and my position to those who come into the thread who might not be following things super closely, and who might just take your quote as meaning that yes -- that's actually what I *said*, just like you claimed ("You say..."). They don't know you well enough to know not to trust you yet.

 

But that is your position, right? You even confirm this 3 quotes later, I mean this is part of the discussion, right, that you think IP gives you a right to general ideas (like "pencil sharpeners" and "the wheel," rather than say, "this specific pencil sharpener I invented," or "this specific kind of wheel that I invented"), so I'm not see how you think this is me strawmanning you, or why you thought I was quoting you?

 

I'm... not quite sure what you mean by "3 quotes later"?  But here's what I *do* know. The quote of Eiuol's you've represented as my words, I responded to with:

"Come again?"

 

So that doesn't sound like the strictest of agreement to me.

And then I explained to him all the ways in which he is wrong, and dropping context, to conclude that his paraphrase of my argument is apt. Now, I get that you didn't understand -- or want to understand -- any of that. In order to understand my argument, you would have to be sincere in your efforts here. And you're not. So I'm not asking you to actually understand me, which is beyond you, but yes, I am asking that you attribute quotes honestly, at least so that other people can easily see your misunderstanding for themselves.

Do you need to go somewhere to learn how to attribute quotes properly, and why that's important? English 101 at your local community college can probably assist.

 

Incidentally, it is kind of funny because you said "ostensibly attributing it to me," and the word "ostensibly" means "seemingly, but not actual."

 

Kind of funny? Oh, you sell yourself short. That is super funny! Wow. What a burn. You really got me good!

It's funny for me, personally, because I've weighed whether or not to point out your many misspellings or grammatical flubs, etc., in my earlier responses... but I was concerned that doing that would make me seem weak and asinine. Like I was just grasping at straws, and didn't have anything better or more substantial to say. I thought that, you know, maybe it would be petty of me.

So I'm happy for this demonstration of pettiness that you were gracious enough to provide, and happy to see that I was right not to do this myself. It's so lame! :)

I'll also note, for you, for the future, that when you want to play the part of "pedantic asshole" (and I know you're not just "playing" -- this is pure you on display -- but please bear with), it will help you out to be correct about the details. For instance, here is Merriam-Webster on "ostensibly" (Merriam-Webster being *my* first search engine hit on the term, but maybe not yours):

 

1: in an ostensible manner

2: to all outward appearances

 

So... maybe that's what I meant? That you were attributing that quote to me "to all outward appearances"? I mean sure, we both knew that those weren't actually my words; that's what makes it deceptive, jackass.

 

Well obvously I know that there are more than one positions on IP, it seems rather intentionally dishonest of you to pretend like I am unaware of this.

 

There is certainly dishonesty here, but it isn't mine. I wasn't pretending anything, and neither was I saying that you're unaware of anything. I said that your argument acted as though there's only one case. So... are you hard of understanding? Is there some other language I should be trying to communicate to you in? English doesn't seem to be working. But just in case you somehow missed it the first time, here's where I explained this very same thing to you just in the last post:

 

You were talking about "the pro-IP case" as though there is only one, and that's what I was responding to; I wasn't responding to what I think you might or might not be "aware" of, but rather what you were saying, and your arguments.

 

And here it is again in Spanish (via Google), if that's preferable:

 

Usted hablaba de "el caso de pro-IP", como si sólo hay una, y eso es lo que estaba respondiendo a, yo no estaba respondiendo a lo que creo que puede ser o no ser "consciente" de, sino más bien lo que estaban diciendo, y sus argumentos.

 

Entiendes?

 

What's with the rage, man, maybe a vacation in Bali would do you good at this point?

 

While I can't imagine a vacation in Bali ever being a bad thing, actually, I'm feeling pretty good at the moment. Now that I understand that you're not sincerely trying on your end to be honest, or reasonable, or friendly, it's far less frustrating on mine.

Now, the "rage" that I felt initially in saying "this is vile"? (Which wasn't quite "rage," but why worry about shades of meaning, or being accurate, at this point?) That was in response to your accusation that I was intentionally misinterpreting you, which of course was insulting, and stupid, and untrue of you to say. I figured you were *actually* responding in an underhanded manner to my attempt to contact you in private, to work all this out and maintain a polite conversation, before things got out of hand. But in private you told me to "just to calm the f down" while in public you accused me of dishonesty. So, you know, you have answered all of the questions I had about you quite succinctly: it wasn't beneath you at all, but right on your level.

Hey! On the plus side, you quoted me accurately here, so good job on that! :)

 

Have a mai tai for me and forget about IP for now then. I guess there's no point in giving you feeback on the rest of your ideas (even though you're the one that asked for it in the first place... geez)

 

No. There certainly isn't any point for the kind of feedback you have to offer. But my advice to you going forward isn't to "forget about IP," but to start thinking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×