Reply to: Villian or hero?

[doodab]

You seem to live in your own reality which is defined by arbitrary language choices.

They are no more arbitrary than yours. The big difference is that my reality is somewhat closer to everyone else's than yours is.

I never claimed that property needn't be scarce because people have adopted the use of the word 'property' with respect to non-scarce things. I pointed out that it has NEVER referred to the scarcity of things and you were simply distorting the meaning of the word.

You need to get yourself a special book called a "dictionary". It will help you understand what words actually mean and save you making up your own misguided definitions for them.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Like I said, you seem to struggle with the subtleties of language.

You seem to live in your own reality which is defined by arbitrary language choices.
Reality begets language, but you can't reverse the two without a dose of self-deception.
You cannot reasonably (read logically) claim property needn't be scarce because people have adopted the use of the word 'property' with respect to non-scarce things, and THEN accuse me of struggling with language.
By your own definition language isn't something that can be subjected to the rigours of 'correct/incorrect' valuations.

[doodab]

No. The concept of impossibility can exist. The concept of a square circle cannot.

The phrase can exist, you coined it so you can't deny that, and impossible or self contradictory concepts can indeed exist and be manipulated by the human mind. If they couldn't it would be impossible to argue that they were impossible or contradictory. Only last week you yourself posted a question about an omniscient omnipotent being, while arguing that such a being was impossible. The square circle you've invented is simply a less subtle and more obviously ridiculous example of the same thing, if the concept didn't exist, then it couldn't be thought ridiculous.

My taking the phrase to refer to something impossible in general rather than the concept of a square circle is what is known as "metaphor" BTW. Like I said, you seem to struggle with the subtleties of language.

[Batcher]

So your answer to my question was 'yes' then?

No.

[SpontaneousOrder]

So you are saying the concept of impossible doesn't exist?

I think you've got a ******* cheek calling me a troll when you happily redefine the meaning of everyday words willy nilly to suit your barmy arguments. In fact, I think you're too stupid and up your own arsehole to bother with anymore so I'm going to give it a miss from now on.

No. The concept of impossibility can exist. The concept of a square circle cannot. The concept of a truthful lie cannot. The concept of an all-seeing blindness cannot.

I've never met such a vile cesspool of nihilism.

[doodab]

Ok. You are the ultimate ****tard, or ubertroll. Surely noone can be that insanely dense.

So you are saying the concept of impossible doesn't exist?

I think you've got a ******* cheek calling me a troll when you happily redefine the meaning of everyday words willy nilly to suit your barmy arguments. In fact, I think you're too stupid and up your own arsehole to bother with anymore so I'm going to give it a miss from now on.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You seem to have problems using language.

... for something impossible, which can clearly exist as a concept if not in reality.

Ok. You are the ultimate ****tard, or ubertroll. Surely noone can be that insanely dense.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You're still talking nonsense. They have a department dealing with it because it exists. Can you post the link for the department of square circles?

So your answer to my question was 'yes' then?

[doodab]

ZOMG. Same question to you then - if the government had a department dealing with square circles, would that mean that there can be such a thing as a square circle?

You seem to have problems using language.

It ought to be obvious that the point of language is to facilitate communication. In the case of the phrase "intellectual property" this is a label that enables people to refer to something quite specific that most definitely exists. You may object to it being labelled "property" on some pedantic grounds but that simply fails to acknowledge that language and it's use evolve, and it's the evolution of language that's required for a phrase to come into general use. Formation of a government department might cause that (i.e. if their jargon becomes widely adopted) but it's more likely that they are following a wider trend, as has happened in the case of intellectual property.

As to whether there could be such a thing as a square circle, you're using the phrase as a synonym for something impossible, which can clearly exist in concept if not in reality. So that answers the question in the affirmative doesn't it, although I'd say it's unlikely to catch on.

[Batcher]

ZOMG. Same question to you then - if the government had a department dealing with square circles, would that mean that there can be such a thing as a square circle?

You're still talking nonsense. They have a department dealing with it because it exists. Can you post the link for the department of square circles?

[SpontaneousOrder]

That's nonsense. Of course it exists.

The government have a department dealing with IP Intellectual Property Office - Welcome to the Intellectual Property Office

There is now an IP court https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/rc...terprise-court

ZOMG. Same question to you then - if the government had a department dealing with square circles, would that mean that there can be such a thing as a square circle?

[darmstadt]

BBC News - Kim Dotcom: On the road with Hollywood's biggest enemy

Is Kim Dotcom a villian or a hero?

<AustinPowersMode>

You forgot 'Fat German Bastard'

</AustinPowersMode>

[Batcher]

There is no such thing! They aren't 'taking' anything, as I've pointed out several times already.

That's nonsense. Of course it exists.

The government have a department dealing with IP Intellectual Property Office - Welcome to the Intellectual Property Office

There is now an IP court https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/rc...terprise-court

[doodab]

No. Fail. Get a clue! A futures contract may exist because two or more people form a contract. Intellectual property cannot exist because it is a contradiction. A futures contract is not a contradiction.

Intellectual property can exist for exactly the same reason. As long as two parties agree to exchange it for money it exists, on some level.

You'll be telling me next that there would be such a thing as a square circle of the law said so.

Feel free to write that again in English

Your fundamental problem is that the entire world disagrees with you on the subject of the existence intellectual property. You may as well deny the existence of the sky, you'll look no more of a fool.

[doodab]

Rofl. You're the king of begging the question and you accuse me of lacking common sense.

The concept of ownership only exists because of scarcity. It is impossible (or I should say doesn't make sense) to own something that isn't scarce. How can you own a right? You can possess a right, but you cannot own it. It's ridiculous.

You're taking one of the standard approaches of armchair philosophers everywhere when they're losing an argument and asking for definitions of everyday words. It's quite obvious that a language cannot be completely defined without reference to reality.

It's also a bit rich of you to accuse me of begging the question when your premises are in general conclusions drawn from a seemingly delusional view of the world. You simply state without any sort of argument that "intellectual property doesn't exist" or "the concept of property only exists because resources are scarce" when such statements are clearly contentious and out of step with the actual meaning of the words in every day usage.

One can own anything. It needn't be scarce. People own cars, yet thousands are scrapped every year, hardly something you'd do with a "scarce resource".