Ok, so normally I try to refrain from posting in such situations but I feel I need to interject here. Before I start this though I do feel I should preempt this by saying that I do not in any way agree with what the berated member was suggesting. So with that out of the way . . .
Argument 1
At no point in any post does he make the assertion that the act of piracy is justified or right. In fact the primary portion of the quote in question is a question, which isn't debatable because it isn't a statement.
Argument 2
He does not in his statement detract from the legitimacy of a previous offender's criticism. He only implies that such would make you a hypocrite. This opens up a whole new can of worms that is beyond the scope of this argument. Regardless your reasoning missed the target again.
You awarded your self 3 points though there are only two arguments, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that one of the points came from a previous post. Now I think that the score should be adjusted to the following.
You: 0
Him: -3
P.S. This is all in good fun. No offense to you praetoritevong I just like to argue and saw a good opportunity to change the subject.
Argument 1
According to your post, there is nothing wrong with a shoplifter stealing because he has done it before. There is nothing wrong with cheating because someone, somewhere, has done it before.
At no point in any post does he make the assertion that the act of piracy is justified or right. In fact the primary portion of the quote in question is a question, which isn't debatable because it isn't a statement.
Argument 2
Also, according to your logic: I have assaulted someone. Therefore, I should not criticise you for doing the same.
False - assaulting someone is wrong, whether or not it has been done before. The fact that I may have assaulted someone in the past does not make my criticism any less legitimate.
I'll make it simpler for you. How about: I have made a mistake before. Therefore, I should not criticise you for the same mistake.
All false, of course. Your logic is like swiss cheese.
He does not in his statement detract from the legitimacy of a previous offender's criticism. He only implies that such would make you a hypocrite. This opens up a whole new can of worms that is beyond the scope of this argument. Regardless your reasoning missed the target again.
You awarded your self 3 points though there are only two arguments, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that one of the points came from a previous post. Now I think that the score should be adjusted to the following.
You: 0
Him: -3
P.S. This is all in good fun. No offense to you praetoritevong I just like to argue and saw a good opportunity to change the subject.