this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
1933 points (98.0% liked)

piracy

675 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1933
Title (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by sebinspace to c/piracy
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AngryCommieKender 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No. The first argument is that the author can equate slavery to murder without being misunderstood. They then expound further on that meaning. They say nothing about wages.

The second argument says that in contrast one cannot equate property to robbery without being grossly misunderstood, which you have so eloquently demonstrated.

[–] aidan 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it is from a 19th century socialist, this sort of language isn't easily understood by most people in the modern day. And to act like it should be so insightful to them is sophistry.

[–] AngryCommieKender 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not taking offense that they didn't understand the argument. I'm taking offense that they openly admitted to not reading it, and then attempting to summarize what it said, poorly. If that's sophistry, so be it. They're being willfully ignorant.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, what you posted is insanely hard to actually read. Putting the whole quote as the link and not having any paragraphs makes it so much more taxing that yeah, I noped out halfway through when I realized I read the same thing three times, except it wasn't, because they draw parallels that would have been obvious, if they were formatted. Kinda like how that last sentence was painful to read.

[–] AngryCommieKender 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't post it. I just interpreted it.