Hacker News Reader

Comment by raganwald | Hacker News Reader

Hey, I don't disagree with your feelings on the matter, but there is still a logical fallacy in the way you put it the first time. Consider the following statements:

1. There must be some executive who agrees that there is a difference between copying and theft, and;

2. There must be some executive who agrees that since there is a fundamental difference between an act that gives to one without depriving another and an act which gives to one while depriving another, there must therefore be a fundamental difference between copying and theft, and;

3. There must be some executive who understands the difference between copying and theft.

The first one makes it plain that there is debate as to whether X and Y are different. The second puts your terms on display for debate. The third assumes them.

View on HN

I'm not actually the person who made the first statement. But as I see it, he made 2 statements:

1. Stated (as fact) that there is a fundamental difference between copyright infringement and physcal theft.

2. Expressed dismay at the apparent lack of understanding of the above fact by the music / movie industries.

Expressing dismay because someone else seems unaware of something you hold as a fact is not a logical fallacy in and of itself. It may be possible to show the fact is incorrect and the dismay therefore unnecessary, but that doesn't make it a fallacy.

I agree with the way you have broken the statement up. Begging the question is not so much a logical fallacy as a tautological argument. The issue is that item 1 is not so much stated as assumed en passant. It's kind of like asking "When did you stop beating your wife."

The statement is couched as being about point number two, but if we say either "yes, there are music executives who understand" or "no, you're wrong, no music executives understand," either way we are forced to agree with the first point.

For the record, I agree with both points, but I also acknowledge that the matter is subject to debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

I quote: This fallacy is often confused with begging the question, which offers a premise no more plausible than, and often just a restatement of, the conclusion.

It does become a loaded question if you ask a music industry exec: "Are you aware of the fundamental difference between copyright infringement and stealing?" But, as the wikipedia article says, that's not the same as begging the question. In any case, it's not a loaded question, since it's not a question to begin with.

The original poster did not ask us to answer the question about the record / film industry, while accepting his other statement. He was saying "I believe that there is a fundamental difference between X and Y, and am dismayed by the lack of understanding of this difference in the record / film industry". I doubt he had formal logic in mind.

EDIT: But you do make some very points, and I'm willing to concede that I may be completely wrong about what the original guy was trying to say, or how it should be interpreted. I really should spend less time on HN :)

Perhaps it is a loaded statement :-)

Thanks, I learned something from your points and research.

Yeah, learned something too. Thanks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com