Comment by ESTheComposer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ESTheComposer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's called a false equivalence fallacy[1] and more specifically it's called the fallacy of composition[2]. I don't know why I'm taking the time to do this but I'm going to assume you're genuine with wanting to learn so:

Essentially the original argument I made is

1. Stealing (in this context) is depriving someone of their unearned revenue by duplicating or taking their work without their express consent and payment.

2. Stealing is wrong

3. Pirating is stealing

So, 4. Pirating is wrong

You took my comment and attempted to do this:

1. Stealing (in this context) is depriving someone of their unearned revenue by duplicating or taking their work without their express consent and payment.

2. Stealing is wrong

3. Reading my comment for free is stealing

So, 4. Reading my comment for free is wrong

Except step 3 is an invalid assertion since we are on a public forum with accounts created for the express purpose of reading and writing on said public forum for free. Your argument makes the assumption that because an action (using something for free) is wrong in one instance, it must be wrong in all instances.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=A%20... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

I disagree with your characterization of my comment as an instance of false equivalence, primarily because you had to change/add more premises to your argument as part of your explanation. So in fact you're committing some fallacies in your reply, also. :)

Regardless, obviously my comment was tongue-in-cheek, and I do in fact grant a license to Hacker News to display my content for all to see per the terms of use. But I hoped my comment would help you think about the absurdity of your original argument and how you can arrive at some ridiculous situations without getting much more complex than a Hacker News comment.

For example: I create a webpage that says "By reading this page, you agree to pay me $1" and then include a Paypal or Stripe link just below that text. You visit the page, and you have a link right in front of you to pay me. Now are you stealing from me if you don't pay? It costs me money to host the page, and I hold the copyright on the content and I'm not posting it anywhere else.

> 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

> 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.

> 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.

> 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."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com