Eiuol Posted October 6, 2019 Report Share Posted October 6, 2019 18 minutes ago, MisterSwig said: it's just a metaphor for VHF signals You can't make arguments by metaphor. All it can do is make it easier to understand your argument, but not demonstrate its validity. If you are talking about transmitted signals, there is nothing to trip over. Simple as that. With your thought experiment, all you altered is visibility. It still has the same physical dimensions, physical impact on the world, and physical impact on people. The signals you're talking about don't do anything measurably adverse to your body. Intense enough radioactivity can cause harm to your body in a measurable way. It's possible that signals can affect the way equipment operates, but then any potential violation would involve equipment that is your property. It's not because the signals would violate your airspace or whatever you want to call it. If you had no equipment affected by those signals, then there is no way your property rights could be violated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 7, 2019 Report Share Posted October 7, 2019 8 hours ago, MisterSwig said: How so? He hasn't met your criteria for trespassing. And nobody will trip over the "invisible sign," because it's just a metaphor for VHF signals. And the "special glasses" are a TV. Why is the invisible sign considered trespassing, but the invisible signals are not? Radio waves are not invisible signs. You took a physical, material object that people could touch and hold and wave around and look at and then made it hypothetically invisible. But making it invisible didn't make it intangible. Radio waves are intangible and your invisible sign is not so your hypothetical fails. You could have used Pokemon Go as a better example, but now I'm doing your work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted October 7, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2019 16 hours ago, Grames said: Radio waves are intangible and your invisible sign is not so your hypothetical fails. I never said that the invisible sign was tangible. You did. I said it was undetectable without the special glasses. Is tangibility also part of your standard for violating property rights? If the sign were intangible, then it wouldn't violate my property rights? Why does tangibility matter? Let's say I never touch the sign. Must I prove its tangibility before a court could find the socialist guilty of violating my rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 7, 2019 Report Share Posted October 7, 2019 21 minutes ago, MisterSwig said: I never said that the invisible sign was tangible. You did. You said it was a sign. Being tangible is an attribute of such an object. If you want to proceed with your silly hypothetical, call it something else to avoid me calling attention to all those other attributes you did not want to think about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.