sheetzoos

joined 4 months ago
[–] sheetzoos@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Billionaires are destroying the planet.

They were destroying the planet before "AI" and they will continue to do so if left unchecked.

[–] sheetzoos@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's cute that you think you can reform copyright to suit your needs. Billion dollar corporations like Disney have more money than you and everyone you know. They will make the law whatever the fuck they want it to be.

Copyright laws exist to protect the entrenched interests of the rich. It should be abolished, but the useful idiots and the rich would never allow it.

[–] sheetzoos@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I agree with Jomega.

Stealing is wrong. 200 billion dollar corporations like Disney worked very hard to change copyright laws. We need to respect these billion dollar corporations creating rules solely to benefit themselves.

[–] sheetzoos@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Rich billionaire assholes are ruining every industry. It's not just the tech sector.

[–] sheetzoos@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Similar energy:

[–] sheetzoos@lemmy.world 50 points 1 month ago

All spam should be responded to in kind.

[–] sheetzoos@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Invaders out of Ukraine.

[–] sheetzoos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone distorts or exaggerates another person's argument"

They distorted my argument by making shit up. That's called a straw man fallacy.

You think you're saying a lot, but you've said nothing.

[–] sheetzoos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I am not a corporate apologist. I never said I was a corporate apologist. My post history backs up the fact that I am not a corporate apologist. There's nothing "flimsy" about this. It's clear cut if you're willing to objectively look at the logic of the arguments presented.

I'm not using that one point to discredit their entire post. I posted two examples and stated their wall of text was so full of false statements that I wasn't interested in debating every single point with someone who already had their mind made up.

[–] sheetzoos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Did you not read my previous post? The first point I refuted is a strawman argument. They created a position I do not hold to make it easier to attack.

If you don't believe this to be a strawman argument, please explain your logic.

view more: next ›