Zkuq said:
1. I'm not familiar enough with your history to be able to answer to this properly. If you can provide be me a short elaboration, I'll gladly look into it however. Anyway, if a judge's judgement on a matter isn't the official interpretation of the law and thus effectively the law, I don't know what is. Whether that's the correct interpretation of the law might be questionable of course. Maybe you should have a system for fixing judges' errors, but I'd say that's an entirely different issue. Getting back to the actual emulator topic though: Which copyrighted property do you think emulators are violating? 2. I'm not stupid. I know very well something being illegal has nothing to do with its existence. Laws need enforcement to be effective. Anyway, your arguments 1 and 2 are seemingly separate and seemingly counter-arguments to two different arguments, while I only had one argument. Thus, it seemed odd that you seemed to be countering two different arguments when I only had one. |
1. Google Dredd Scott.
2. You said that if emulators were illegal they wouldn't exist. Your argument was if A, then B. Or to put it another way, if A (the ground is wet) then B (it is raining). That form of argument isn't valid though, because the ground could still be wet from some other means, such as a burst damn. Affirming the consequent isn't a valid argument.
