“I really don’t understand why people think they have a moral right to other people’s creations.”
That’s a straw man fallacy. That statement removes all the always important context you just alluded to, a statement which was never claimed.
I like that you brought it up though, the original remark, a bit sardonic but that’s okay. It keeps me aware of my own potential generalizations, assumptions, fallacies, and whatnot.
“I really don’t understand why people think they have a moral right to other people’s creations.”
That’s a straw man fallacy. That statement removes all the always important context you just alluded to, a statement which was never claimed.
In the articles this is being claimed:
Free dissemination of knowledge that benefits the advancement of mankind should never be illegal. In fact, Z-Library being illegal is immoral.
You say that it’s immoral that Z-Library is illegal. The purpose of Z-Library is arguably to provide people with copyrighted content for free. I.E Other people’s creations.
Please tell me what important context I’m missing. To me it honestly just seems like you want someone else’s stuff for free and are just brining up morally in a misguided way to achieve that.
Wanting free shit is great, I support that. Pirate all you want. But it isn’t about morality.
P.S. isn’t bringing up the straw man fallacy a straw man fallacy itself? Some people have started to say that every argument they disagree with is essentially a straw man fallacy.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
That’s true but in the context it puts a very bad taste in my mouth.
I really don’t understand why people think they have a moral right to other people’s creations.
That’s a straw man fallacy. That statement removes all the always important context you just alluded to, a statement which was never claimed.
I like that you brought it up though, the original remark, a bit sardonic but that’s okay. It keeps me aware of my own potential generalizations, assumptions, fallacies, and whatnot.
In the articles this is being claimed:
You say that it’s immoral that Z-Library is illegal. The purpose of Z-Library is arguably to provide people with copyrighted content for free. I.E Other people’s creations.
Please tell me what important context I’m missing. To me it honestly just seems like you want someone else’s stuff for free and are just brining up morally in a misguided way to achieve that. Wanting free shit is great, I support that. Pirate all you want. But it isn’t about morality.
P.S. isn’t bringing up the straw man fallacy a straw man fallacy itself? Some people have started to say that every argument they disagree with is essentially a straw man fallacy.
The article clearly mentions my use of Z-Library is to inspect before I buy. Now, because of being misrepresented twice, the discussion ends here.
I have already addressed that in my original comment.
Go to a store.
Just because you wanted to inspect people’s creations in a way that suites you better doesn’t make banning piracy fundamentally immoral.
Sounds great. It’s honestly no use arguing with idiots.