Comment on Yet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving it

LodeMike@lemmy.today ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  No, because OP clearly believes all copyright is bad while your corrected title would be at least some/most copyright has proven to be bad.

  source

  • LodeMike@lemmy.today ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Eh. Belief doesn’t really override logical fallacies. I know. In being pendantic, but I hate misleading headlines, especially when its a statistic.

    If it’s a beleif the author should state that.

    source

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You can say they’re incorrect, but you cannot correct their intentions. Only they can do that.

      source
    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      There is no logical fallacy.

      It also is not a statistic. 🤷🏼‍♀️

      source
• lvxferre@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  On itself, a simple claim (like “copyright destroys culture”) cannot be fallacious. It can be only true or false. For a fallacy, you need a reasoning flaw.

  Also note that, even if you find a fallacy behind a conclusion, that is not enough grounds to claim that the conclusion is false. A non-fallacious argument with true premises yields a true conclusion, but a fallacious one may yield true or false conclusions.

  The issue that you’re noticing with the title is not one of logic, but one of implicature due to the aspect of the verb. “X destroys Y” implies that, every time that X happens, Y gets destroyed; while “X [is] destroying Y” implies that this is only happening now.

  source
• HexesofVexes@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Exists culture Exists copyright s.t. copyright ‘destroys’ culture and not copyright ‘drives’ culture.

  I mean, you’re putting an implied universal where the author is only offering existential. That one is on you!

  “Copyright always destroys culture” would have the universal quantifier you object to.

  Of course, both of these results are formally undecided, mostly because ‘drives’ is not well defined nor decidable in itself!

  source
• themurphy@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  As a non English speaker, I can’t tell the difference. Might be the same for OP.

  source

  • lvxferre@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    In English, the simple present often implies a general truth, regardless of time. While the present continuous strongly implies that the statement is true for the present, and weakly implies that it was false in the past.

    From your profile you apparently speak Danish, right? Note that, in Danish, this distinction is mostly handled through adverbs, so I’m not surprised that you can’t tell the difference. Easier shown with an example:

    Danish	English
    Jeg læser ofte.	I read often. (generally true statement)
    Jeg læser lige nu.	I’m reading right now. (true in the present)

    source

    • themurphy@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That is a great explanation, thanks! I understand the difference now.

      source
    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The title isn’t a mistake.

      It’s openly stating that they believe that to be an inherent feature of at least our current legislation.

      source