This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Private server company to pay Blizzard 88 million dollars.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheReal
If I use something that the law forbids I use for reasons all my own, then I am breaking the law. I don't care why drugs are illegal and why copyright infringement is illegal. They're both illegal, and therefore no one should be doing them.
Post by
Deepthought
If I use something that the law forbids I use for reasons all my own, then I am breaking the law. I don't care why drugs are illegal and why copyright infringement is illegal. They're both illegal, and therefore no one should be doing them.
Argumentum ad verecundiam. Wonderful.
Post by
TheReal
So the law states that both acts are illegal, and because the law is an authority, I assume the law is correct when it states that both acts are illegal.
If that's argument from authority, then perhaps I misunderstand the concept.
Post by
Deepthought
So the law states that both acts are illegal, and because the law is an authority, I assume the law is correct when it states that both acts are illegal.
If that's argument from authority, then perhaps I misunderstand the concept.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
Post by
TheReal
So when I say that something is illegal because the authority who determines what is and what isn't illegal has made that something illegal, I'm committing a fallacy?
Post by
Deepthought
So when I say that something is illegal because the authority who determines what is and what isn't illegal has made that something illegal, I'm committing a fallacy?
Your attempt to dance around the flaw in your arguement via rewording is pretty obvious, you know?
You said They're both illegal, and therefore no one should be doing them. This is an
argumentum ad verecundiam
.
It is not, however, you sayingthat something is illegal because the authority who determines what is and what isn't illegal has made that something illegalSaying that something falls into the catagory of "illegal" (in that you will be punished if you are found doing it) because the authority that deems things "illegal" has (suprise) deemed it "illegal", is not
argumentum ad verecundiam
, it is stating the complete bloody obvious.
Post by
TheReal
/golfclap
Here's your Internet. Don't spend it all in one place.
I don't even want to know, but if you're part of the crowd who believes it's perfectly acceptable to bend someone's copyright-protected creation to your will (whether you profit or not), then go die. We don't need scum like you on this Earth.
Post by
Deepthought
Hooooooo-boy.
/golfclapAnd we're off to a wonderful start. What is it, exactly, that provoked this response? Can you not grasp the concept of "
A=/=B
"? Or is the idea "arguing that
"authority says X, therefore X"
is a fallacy" just too confusing? These are the only concepts I have put forth.
But really now.Here's your Internet. Don't spend it all in one place.Oh lovely, a tired internet catchphrase. Par for the course, it seems. I don't even want to know, but if you're part of the crowd who believes it's perfectly acceptable to bend someone's copyright-protected creation to your will (whether you profit or not), then go die. We don't need scum like you on this Earth.YOU DISAGREE WITH ME ON ANYTHING? YOU MUST BE
ONE OF THEM!
I mean, wow. Do you even know the issue I took with your original post? Maybe if you went back, and re-read it a few times, you might see.
Also lmao, you think people's lives are worth less than property, good going.
You have some serious debating issues. Telling someone to "go die" because you
assume
they fall into the group of "
those people stealing my property
" is not the way to go about it. Especially when you have no logical reason to suppose such a thing.
Post by
TheReal
I never assumed you were in that group of people. That group of people make my life a living hell in my line of work, and such I wish they would all die. Is it that difficult?
Post by
Deepthought
I never assumed you were in that group of people.It's kind implied in your post that you did, but I'll ignore that, because this does nothing to answer the rather vital question: Do you even know the issue I took with your original post?That group of people make my life a living hell in my line of work, and such I wish they would all die. Is it that difficult?Yeah actually, I do find it difficult to comprehend you wishing death on a large amount of people because they inconvience you. It is not a healthy mindset.
Post by
Gnub
While it's an interesting route this discussion has taken, let's keep it civil, alright?
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
If I enjoy it, then it should be legal. Yes, that's the "route" I'm taking.
Tell me why copyright infringement is illegal.
It can cause harm to a person or entity.
Then tell me why certain drugs are illegal.
They can cause harm to a person or entity.
*looks at the reasons*
I don't see the difference.
When you come down to it, the legality of something boils down to, "Can it potentially cause harm to a person or entity?" There may be more details to it, but if you cannot answer that question in the positive, then you need to seriously examine whether or not you need a law to regulate it.
Post by
138584
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MrSCH
You people just throw round stuff like '
argumentum ad verecundiam
.' because you think it makes you look clever.
I don't even know what that is.
Post by
Dragoonman
Look, they illegally used Blizz to profit for themselves.
They knew full well that they could get ownt like this. And the deserved it. End of story :(
Post by
abulurd
When you come down to it, the legality of something boils down to, "Can it potentially cause harm to a person or entity?" There may be more details to it, but if you cannot answer that question in the positive, then you need to seriously examine whether or not you need a law to regulate it.
You mind if I steal that quote Xaratherus? I've been looking for a new sig.
Post by
Rexz
I believe the only reason why Blizzard specifically targeted this PS and set up a case for it is because
1. The person (Peyton, also known as Alyson Reeves) has used the donation money for herself and is profiting illegally on Blizzard's work.
2. The controversy surrounding this is pretty HUGE within the private server community even BEFORE blizzard has gotten involved with it. The issue even leaked out of the PS community and to retail players, i'm pretty sure some here on WoWhead forum have heard of Scapegaming before
(which explains why W0Wscape is censored on here to prevent people from talking about the private server)
.
3. It was very easy to track down Peyton, the perpetrator of the PS, because she lives in the US. Plus there have been a huge controversy about her before blizzard got involved. There are many links and sources that lead to her doing these things, that are posted by Ex-GM and angry players across the whole web if you try to track them down. (like this one that i posted
http://thetruthaboutpeyton.blogspot.com/
)
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.