TallDarkAndWitty
Posts: 1893
Joined: 6/12/2004 From: Rochester, NY Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Archer 1. you HOLD a patent you don't own it. You are misunderstanding the terms of art as I am using them. What I was refering to was the ownership of intellectual property, not of a patent. A patent (much like one of my contracts) provides the structure for temporary ownership, in its case, of intellectual property. No one said you own a patent, what I said was that a patent gives you temporary ownership of intellectual property. quote:
2. and your discription of "short term ownership" is constructed in the same way a car lease is so to my mind it is much closer to a lease agreement than ownership. The only thing my description of "short term ownership" and a lease have in common is that they are both short term. A lease does not provide for actually exchange of ownership, my description does. You refuse to acknowledge that there is even such a thing as short term ownership...why? quote:
The difference is clear to see if you use logic, if there is a set end date to your control then it is not ownership. That is not logic, that is the logical fallacy of "circular reasoning". It starts with an arbitrary definition of "ownership as only ownership if it is forever (or intended or optioned to be so)" and ends with "if there is a set date to your control then it is not ownership." Logical fallacies often seem logical, but they are, in the end, flawed. quote:
3.Very closed thinking, in the legal sense yes you own the dog, but in the mental sense the dog would still feel and think they are owned by me, and it goes towards the owning their heart and mind, which does not transfer instantly the way a body might. Because it is psycologicly impossible. And here is the real crux of the issue, no? I couldn't care less about owning the heart and mind, I want to own the slave. Your heart and mind ownership is very romantic, and works for a great many people, but it does not allow for my kind of ownership...why? quote:
I'm not arguing to change your mind it's obviously closed on the subject, I've only argued the concepts so that others reading can see that your sermon from the mount isn't the only one. Presenting other ideas and letting them make the decission. That is a little like saying you are arguing in favor of the existence of god at a church meeting, just to counter my arguments against. I think far more people agree with your idea of ownership then agree with mine. I just don't understand why you can not allow that they can co-exist. Taggard
_____________________________
A most rewarding compliment is an insult from the ill-informed. My slave: Kat (RainaVerene on the other side) and her website: RainaVerene.com
|