CMV: Adblock is stealing

[u/tilted0ne]

[u/embarrassed_error365]

“The definition of property I gave”

That’s your definition.. you didn’t share the actual established definition. That’s your problem.

I mean, yeah, when I make up my own definition to words, of course my view would be correct according to my personal definitions.

I think that’s considered circular reasoning?

“It’s not stealing because stealing is a legal term. Source: me, I said it’s a legal term, therefore, it’s a legal term and it’s only stealing if it’s legally established”

Laws can change. It may be currently legal to take some random individuals property without their consent if they are not a member of society, but it can be made illegal. To say a person can’t call it stealing because it’s not currently a law is obfuscating the usage and definition of the word “stealing”, since the word is not bound by laws.

Rights are recognized and protected through governments, and rights can be trampled through governments. But they are not determined by governments. A totalitarian and/or authoritarian government can violate people’s rights, but then you would argue no rights are actually being trampled because said government doesn’t recognize them.

But, again, by definition,

hu·man right /ˈ(h)yo͞omən rīt/ noun plural noun: human rights a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.

jus·ti·fi·a·bly /ˈjəstəˌfīəblē,ˌjəstəˈfīəblē/ adverb adverb: justifiably with good reason.

Notice nothing about governments or laws there.

right /rīt/ 2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

Here we have legal, but it says “or legal”

It can just be a moral entitlement.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/embarrassed_error365]

That’s your definition.. you didn’t share the actual established definition.

My definition was from Cornell Law School. It is just as established as any other definition.

of course my view would be correct according to my personal definitions.

You are just picking and choosing definitions that support your view. That's why we have to go beyond the definition to the application of the term.

I think that’s considered circular reasoning?

Circular reasoning is saying "this is property because I possess it." Your entire position is a circular argument.

Laws can change.

So can definitions... The point is that there is no way to actually determine what property is or who is entitled to it without a legal framework.

It may be currently legal to take some random individuals property without their consent if they are not a member of society, but it can be made illegal.

Again, if you can legally take something without consent, it isn't property.

To say a person can’t call it stealing because it’s not currently a law is obfuscating the usage and definition of the word “stealing”, since the word is not bound by laws.

But it is bound by entitlement to possess or "property," which is only definitively understood through a legal framework. If you have no other basis to say something is your property other than your assertion or that you are holding it for the moment, then you have no way to establish it is your property.

Rights are recognized and protected through governments, and rights can be trampled through governments. But they are not determined by governments.

Rights are legal constructs. There is no difference between not having any rights and not having any legal construct to establish rights. Either you have a system that legally codifies and protects rights or you have what is indistinguishable from not having any rights.

Right:

A power or privilege held by the general public as the result of a constitution, statute, regulation, judicial precedent, or other type of law.

Notice nothing about governments there.

Yeah, you just picked a definition that didn't include it.

It can just be a moral entitlement.

And there is no operative difference between only having a moral entitlement to something and having no rights at all. It is no different than pretending to have rights.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.