You are cornered, so you are retreating into semantics. Let’s strip away the philosophical tap-dancing and look at the actual mechanics of your argument, which completely collapses under its own weight.
First, claiming that observing the universe’s indifference is a subjective metaphysical claim is absurd. It is the exact opposite. It is the empirical observation that inanimate matter and physical laws do not possess moral agency. Gravity and entropy do not have feelings or ethical standards. Acknowledging that physical reality lacks a moral compass is not a subjective belief; it is the baseline of objective science.
Second, you challenged the assertion that a shift to digital-only media has zero impact on human survival, calling it blatantly subjective. No, it is a biological fact. Human survival requires caloric intake, hydration, and protection from the elements. A corporation revoking access to an entertainment license does not deprive you of any of those things. To equate the loss of a digital game with actual harm or a threat to human prosperity is a massive category error.
Third, you argue that consumers were sold media under the impression of obtaining ownership and that society broke a promise to them. Who exactly made that promise? The software industry certainly did not. For forty years, practically every piece of commercial software came with an agreement explicitly stating it was licensed and not sold. The fact that millions of consumers ignored the legal text because they liked the feeling of holding a plastic cartridge does not mean a promise was broken. It just means the public was willfully ignorant of the transaction. A consumer’s failure to read the manual does not constitute a moral failing on the part of the creator.
Fourth, you bring up Stone Age barter systems to prove that ownership has always existed. No one ever argued that physical property did not exist. You could own a physical tool in the Stone Age, just like you can own a physical plastic case today. But you cannot permanently own the ongoing, continuous labor of another human being. Modern digital ecosystems require ongoing human labor to maintain. Demanding perpetual ownership of a live digital service for a one-time fee is demanding uncompensated labor.
You accuse me of asserting subjective beliefs as reality, but my entire argument is built on documented copyright law, the physical realities of server maintenance, and the historical text of software licenses. You are the only one arguing from a place of emotion. You are upset because the illusion of physical media ownership was shattered, and instead of accepting the legal and technical reality of how digital infrastructure actually works, you are trying to frame a standard licensing dispute as a hypocritical betrayal of human rights. It is not. You just didn’t read the terms of service.
Give me one reason to prove that the universe is apathetic. For context of my bias, I consider myself agnostic, so I really don’t lean either way regarding that question.
Regardless, you won’t be able to. Which makes your entire argument inherently invalid.
So it’s funny that you need to accuse me of being “backed into a corner” to get out of dodge of your own weird and contradictory standpoint. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, I suppose. I can’t imagine you’re very satisfied being utterly at odds with every spooky idea in your eyes like that though, instead of seeking common ground in a more courteous manner, or at least agreeing to disagree.
Additionally, and I realize this is the area you’re trying to goad me into, but there’s really nothing “emotional” per se about where I’m coming from here. I certainly have attachments to my beliefs and that gives me motivation to defend them, but at the end of the day you’re really just providing entertainment to me. Silly, if not dumb entertainment, but still. Conversely, and not to go “no, you”, but there’s definitely a lot of emotionally-charged rhetoric you seem to be leaning on with your groundless accusations and whatnot from whatever comes to mind (e.g. your initial sentence).
Anyway I’m going to leave you to your gaping void of pseudo-theory now because it’s starting to feel like I’m reading ChatGPT prompts with each of your responses (whether you’re actually using AI or not I really don’t care, it’s just getting monotonous). As I’ve said several times now you’re trying to assert your own framework of ideas as fact while simultaneously labelling me as solely doing so. Likely somewhat of a form of projection on your part, though I won’t psychoanalyze you too hard, nor will I claim it as objective for the sake of consistency. Thanks for the break in my doomscroll in any case.
You are demanding I prove a negative to win an argument about software licensing. That is the exact moment you lost the plot.
I do not need to prove the universe is apathetic. The burden of proof rests entirely on the person trying to claim that physical reality possesses a moral framework. Until you can demonstrate that a black hole, a carbon atom, or a quasar holds ethical standards, the scientific baseline is inanimate indifference. But more importantly, it is a massive red herring. The metaphysical state of the cosmos has absolutely zero bearing on the legal mechanics of copyright law and your failure to read a Terms of Service agreement.
You claim you aren’t backed into a corner, yet your final response completely abandoned the actual topic of the debate. You stopped talking about server maintenance, live-ops infrastructure, and intellectual property because you had no technical or legal counter-arguments left. You retreated into metaphysics and tone policing because the mechanical reality of digital ecosystems completely dismantled your claim to permanent ownership.
As for accusing me of sounding like an AI prompt; if presenting structured, coherent logic without emotional rambling reads as artificial to you, that says a lot more about the quality of internet discourse you are accustomed to than it does about my arguments. When someone runs out of actual points, they attack the formatting.
You can claim you are just entertained and doomscrolling to save face, but you spent this entire thread trying to frame a standard licensing dispute as a hypocritical betrayal of humanity, only to end up arguing about whether the universe cares about you.
Enjoy your doomscrolling. The End User License Agreement remains legally binding whether you philosophically agree with it or not.
Enjoy your perpetual victimhood and expect no further response from me.
You are cornered, so you are retreating into semantics. Let’s strip away the philosophical tap-dancing and look at the actual mechanics of your argument, which completely collapses under its own weight.
First, claiming that observing the universe’s indifference is a subjective metaphysical claim is absurd. It is the exact opposite. It is the empirical observation that inanimate matter and physical laws do not possess moral agency. Gravity and entropy do not have feelings or ethical standards. Acknowledging that physical reality lacks a moral compass is not a subjective belief; it is the baseline of objective science.
Second, you challenged the assertion that a shift to digital-only media has zero impact on human survival, calling it blatantly subjective. No, it is a biological fact. Human survival requires caloric intake, hydration, and protection from the elements. A corporation revoking access to an entertainment license does not deprive you of any of those things. To equate the loss of a digital game with actual harm or a threat to human prosperity is a massive category error.
Third, you argue that consumers were sold media under the impression of obtaining ownership and that society broke a promise to them. Who exactly made that promise? The software industry certainly did not. For forty years, practically every piece of commercial software came with an agreement explicitly stating it was licensed and not sold. The fact that millions of consumers ignored the legal text because they liked the feeling of holding a plastic cartridge does not mean a promise was broken. It just means the public was willfully ignorant of the transaction. A consumer’s failure to read the manual does not constitute a moral failing on the part of the creator.
Fourth, you bring up Stone Age barter systems to prove that ownership has always existed. No one ever argued that physical property did not exist. You could own a physical tool in the Stone Age, just like you can own a physical plastic case today. But you cannot permanently own the ongoing, continuous labor of another human being. Modern digital ecosystems require ongoing human labor to maintain. Demanding perpetual ownership of a live digital service for a one-time fee is demanding uncompensated labor.
You accuse me of asserting subjective beliefs as reality, but my entire argument is built on documented copyright law, the physical realities of server maintenance, and the historical text of software licenses. You are the only one arguing from a place of emotion. You are upset because the illusion of physical media ownership was shattered, and instead of accepting the legal and technical reality of how digital infrastructure actually works, you are trying to frame a standard licensing dispute as a hypocritical betrayal of human rights. It is not. You just didn’t read the terms of service.
Give me one reason to prove that the universe is apathetic. For context of my bias, I consider myself agnostic, so I really don’t lean either way regarding that question.
Regardless, you won’t be able to. Which makes your entire argument inherently invalid.
So it’s funny that you need to accuse me of being “backed into a corner” to get out of dodge of your own weird and contradictory standpoint. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, I suppose. I can’t imagine you’re very satisfied being utterly at odds with every spooky idea in your eyes like that though, instead of seeking common ground in a more courteous manner, or at least agreeing to disagree.
Additionally, and I realize this is the area you’re trying to goad me into, but there’s really nothing “emotional” per se about where I’m coming from here. I certainly have attachments to my beliefs and that gives me motivation to defend them, but at the end of the day you’re really just providing entertainment to me. Silly, if not dumb entertainment, but still. Conversely, and not to go “no, you”, but there’s definitely a lot of emotionally-charged rhetoric you seem to be leaning on with your groundless accusations and whatnot from whatever comes to mind (e.g. your initial sentence).
Anyway I’m going to leave you to your gaping void of pseudo-theory now because it’s starting to feel like I’m reading ChatGPT prompts with each of your responses (whether you’re actually using AI or not I really don’t care, it’s just getting monotonous). As I’ve said several times now you’re trying to assert your own framework of ideas as fact while simultaneously labelling me as solely doing so. Likely somewhat of a form of projection on your part, though I won’t psychoanalyze you too hard, nor will I claim it as objective for the sake of consistency. Thanks for the break in my doomscroll in any case.
You are demanding I prove a negative to win an argument about software licensing. That is the exact moment you lost the plot.
I do not need to prove the universe is apathetic. The burden of proof rests entirely on the person trying to claim that physical reality possesses a moral framework. Until you can demonstrate that a black hole, a carbon atom, or a quasar holds ethical standards, the scientific baseline is inanimate indifference. But more importantly, it is a massive red herring. The metaphysical state of the cosmos has absolutely zero bearing on the legal mechanics of copyright law and your failure to read a Terms of Service agreement.
You claim you aren’t backed into a corner, yet your final response completely abandoned the actual topic of the debate. You stopped talking about server maintenance, live-ops infrastructure, and intellectual property because you had no technical or legal counter-arguments left. You retreated into metaphysics and tone policing because the mechanical reality of digital ecosystems completely dismantled your claim to permanent ownership.
As for accusing me of sounding like an AI prompt; if presenting structured, coherent logic without emotional rambling reads as artificial to you, that says a lot more about the quality of internet discourse you are accustomed to than it does about my arguments. When someone runs out of actual points, they attack the formatting.
You can claim you are just entertained and doomscrolling to save face, but you spent this entire thread trying to frame a standard licensing dispute as a hypocritical betrayal of humanity, only to end up arguing about whether the universe cares about you.
Enjoy your doomscrolling. The End User License Agreement remains legally binding whether you philosophically agree with it or not.
Enjoy your perpetual victimhood and expect no further response from me.
The fuq they doin ova ther?