If your friend breaks down the door to a random house and then invites you to a party without telling you he broke in, you are still guilty of trespassing.
bad analogy does not help
It’s the perfect analogy.
LOLOLOLOL.
And Z , the Lord of communism, sorry! the Lord of “social utility” is going to dictate what is the “maximal benefit of all”, right ?
Stranger, maybe you should be attending the coronation of bloomberg ? Joining fascist.org ? Or something ? Why do you bother with libertarianism. Libertarianism is totally alien to your twisted worldview.
If your friend breaks down the door to a random house , studies it in intricate detail, recreates the house on his own property with his own materials and invites you to a party without telling you the house you are in is an exact replica of a house he once broke into, you are still guilty of … ? (having friends who commit criminal trespass and invite you to parties?)
Z,
Thanks for further convincing me of the correctness of my position.
Of course. The information that allowed him to replicate the house was obtained illegally, therefore your presence in the house is illegal.
your logic is invalid.
The same “Lord of social utility” that “dictates” you not to kill someone else and take his stuff. If that “dictate” was not for the maximal benefit of all, it wouldn’t be there to begin with.
Z.
How so?
A Therefore B
That means nothing.
it was the logical form of your argument. which was an argument with the argument left out. or maybe you think i should have assumed the argument for you?
My pleasure, either way. From my previous experiences with fundamentalists of all colors, I wasn’t holding my breath that you would change your mind, anyway.
Z.
You went from A to Z without B through Y. IOW: your conclusion had no connection to the premise.
What is there to argue? You are obtaining a good that was obtained illegally, hence you are also guilty of trespassing.
you are obtaining a potato that was dipped in ink, hence you are also responsible for having dipped a potato in ink.
Hey Z, how is your utilitarian socialism any different from ‘fundamentalism’ (except that it’s a nonsensical sort of ‘fundamentalism’) ? Have you been preaching [praying bah =P] enough to Hayek lately ?
[:^)]
So it’s just your opinion that a EULA is not a contract. Thanks for clearing that up.
I didn’t say contracts were impossible to break. But if you break the contract then the company has legal grounds to sue to stop you distributing copies of their software.
You’re just as stubborn as the Randoids that think IP is the basis for all property rights.