The instance owners do not wish to host potentially problematic content.

I will try to locate a more suitable instance.

  • mindbleach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If your only argument is acknowledged in the first sentence, maybe you never understood the conversation.

    Copyright laws exist. No kidding. What next? What’s the rest of your point?

    People saying they shouldn’t exist, are not ignorant.

    People saying they don’t care, are not ignorant.

    Neither position is challenged by some rando parroting ‘but laws.’ Do you understand that laws can be changed? Do you understand how and why that starts? Do you speak English?

          • mindbleach@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            ‘We’re deliberately rejecting this law.’

            ‘But the law!’

            ‘Laws can be changed.’

            ‘But the law!’

            ‘This law is bad.’

            ‘But the law!’

            ‘Civil disobedience is strategic.’

            ‘But the law!’

            ‘Do you speak English?’

            ‘But the law!’

            Alongside the finger-wag to oooh-so-scary report me, yeah, I’m about done humoring you. You know less than nothing, you patience vampire. Next time try to act less stupid.

            • Dodecahedron December@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              My argument: “the law exists”. My argument isn’t about the ethics of what you should or shouldn’t do. I’m saying there is a law, and that it exists. I win this argument, unless you are denying that the law doesn’t exist.

              Your argument: I don’t know anything because I can’t spell. You’ve yet to back up your claims for this, once.

              • mindbleach@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                ‘But the laaaaaaaw!’

                Ignoring ethics is why you’re wrong about this. Nobody’s arguing non-existence - and you can’t win an argument against nobody. The issue is something else, as I’ve repeatedly explained to you, but alas, you are functionally illiterate.