[ESTheComposer]

> primarily because you had to change/add more premises to your argument as part of your explanation.

I did no such thing, I was putting the argument into logical form[1]. When you do that you express the original argument in specifically semantic terms. I've been saying the same thing since the beginning, piracy is stealing, and by stealing I mean experiencing their work without paying. Putting it into specific terms is not changing my meaning.

Also I hope you realize saying "fallacy" is not equivalent to trying to call bs on me. If you think I've actually committed a fallacy, go ahead and let me know what it is, and if you don't actually know any formal logic, then I'm sure ChatGPT will give you some good ideas.

In regards to your webpage example, websites have a common expectation of loading to the home page for viewing for free. If you have a website that was not explicit about the requirement for payment before the user went on it, then no it's not the same thing, and in fact there's not even a contract with going to a website so there's no legal basis for your example either.

Your arguments are getting less and less in the same vein of piracy

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_form

[angoragoats]

> I did no such thing, I was putting the argument into logical form[1]. When you do that you express the original argument in specifically semantic terms. I've been saying the same thing since the beginning, piracy is stealing, and by stealing I mean experiencing their work without paying. Putting it into specific terms is not changing my meaning.

I understand logical fallacies, and my point is that your original argument as stated way up the thread is materially different from the one you put into logical form. So you don't get to accuse me of a logical fallacy when you're referring to an argument that you haven't articulated yet.

> In regards to your webpage example, websites have a common expectation of loading to the home page for viewing for free. If you have a website that was not explicit about the requirement for payment before the user went on it, then no it's not the same thing, and in fact there's not even a contract with going to a website so there's no legal basis for your example either.

I'm not sure if you have specific legal experience in this area but all of these claims are questionable to me; my understanding is that most of these things have little if any legal precedent and are a grey area at best. I'd be interested to see sources for these claims, since as I said, I don't know too much about this.

[ESTheComposer]

> I understand logical fallacies, and my point is that your original argument as stated way up the thread is materially different from the one you put into logical form.

I mean it's literally not, I state the same thing but shortened further up.

>So you don't get to accuse me of a logical fallacy when you're referring to an argument that you haven't articulated yet.

Ok first off, no one is "accusing" anyone of anything, I'm pointing out a literal fallacy you made. If you're wearing a blue shirt and I point out you're wearing a blue shirt, I'm not accusing you of wearing a blue shirt. And I've articulated my argument many times, including in it's literal formal argument form.

>I'm not sure if you have specific legal experience in this area but all of these claims are questionable to me; my understanding is that most of these things have little if any legal precedent and are a grey area at best. I'd be interested to see sources for these claims, since as I said, I don't know too much about this.

Yeah I'm not going to go trolling through the internet to find examples of this (if there are any, I would wager there aren't since I don't think people would be dumb enough to perform the situation you tried to use as an example) for someone who clearly is just getting angry and not even arguing in good faith.

You're going on about how I'm accusing you and how my argument isn't the same, and you've said I committed a fallacy (which you never even articulated btw), so I don't think there's any point in furthering this conversation. Seems like a waste of time.

[angoragoats]

> I don't think there's any point in furthering this conversation. Seems like a waste of time.

I agree, if we're going to argue about the meaning of the word "accuse."