The Tiny Dot

[Jason]

You can rationalize theft to your heart's content.....but its still theft!

You can cry for anarchy and repealing laws to your heart's content as well!

Nobody is rationalizing theft. You are, however, rationalizing tyranny.

No one is crying for anarchy (i.e. lawless existence), and YOU KNOW IT, which makes you a liar, or a dishonest person at least.

We advocate the true laws of Liberty as defined by scripture and by Benson Principle, and repealing corrupt and IMMORAL use of government force which is tyranny, and will lead to the destruction of the society itself, if unchecked; because without the fundamental principles we advocate, Liberty cannot EXIST, and must unavoidably perish.

Love your audacity....talk about Benson Principle which is founded on mutual respect for others.....then try to rationalize the theft of others intellectual property. Just another one of your koolaide pouring rants....

See you at the judgment bar! Let the chips fall where they may....

[LoveIsTruth]

Love your audacity....talk about Benson Principle which is founded on mutual respect for others.....then try to rationalize the theft of others intellectual property. Just another one of your koolaide pouring rants....

See you at the judgment bar! Let the chips fall where they may....

There is no theft. Your audacity is even more funny: Talking about "property" and denying people the use of their own property by illegitimate and immoral use of government force.


See you at the judgment bar, then you will see that I was right and you were O, so wrong!

I am giving you "I told you so" ahead of time!

[Jason]

Love your audacity....talk about Benson Principle which is founded on mutual respect for others.....then try to rationalize the theft of others intellectual property. Just another one of your koolaide pouring rants....

See you at the judgment bar! Let the chips fall where they may....

There is no theft. Your audacity is even more funny: Talking about "property" and denying people the use of their own property by illegitimate and immoral use of government force.


See you at the judgment bar, then you will see that I was right and you were O, so wrong!

I am giving you "I told you so" ahead of time!

Oh yeah and there's no Holy Ghost because you can't see, touch, or feel him.

Time will tell the story....for better or worse!

[fegunz]

Love your audacity....talk about Benson Principle which is founded on mutual respect for others.....then try to rationalize the theft of others intellectual property.

Why do you keep on making this claim when I have shown this to be false over and over again?

again merely copying something does not take the original away. When I copy a book the author still has his to do with as he pleases. He has nothing less and nothing is missing so clearly nothing has been stolen. The idea that the author has been stolen from is a fantasy: imagine calling 911 and saying "I've been robbed but nothing is missing!" That is literally what artists, authors, and inventors are saying.

Why do you continue to dodge and evade this point?


Could you please have the courage and respect to address this point before irrationally yelling "You thief!" again?

See you at the judgment bar! Let the chips fall where they may....

Yet you cannot defend your claim that any moral principle has been violated when an individual copies a work of another. You toss out an emotionally charged accusation of "theft" yet when questioned and shown to be nonsense you just continue to lean upon the emotionally charged, illogical accusation...


I on the other hand have clearly shown that any advocate of intellectual property is VIOLATING the sacred principle of the "right and control of property" since the very nature of "intellectual property" necessarily involves aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it.

[fegunz]

Oh yeah and there's no Holy Ghost because you can't see, touch, or feel him.

Except that you can feel him.

Time will tell the story....for better or worse!

Yeah instead of actually addressing the logical and scriptural basis for our position just toss out empty phrases like this...

[LoveIsTruth]

Oh yeah and there's no Holy Ghost because you can't see, touch, or feel him.

Except that you can feel him.

Time will tell the story....for better or worse!

Yeah instead of actually addressing the logical and scriptural basis for our position just toss out empty phrases like this...

fegunz, you rock! Thank you! My God, why can't people just use reason instead of believing lies?!


Thanks again.

[Jason]

Oh yeah and there's no Holy Ghost because you can't see, touch, or feel him.

Except that you can feel him.

Time will tell the story....for better or worse!

Yeah instead of actually addressing the logical and scriptural basis for our position just toss out empty phrases like this...

fegunz, you rock! Thank you! My God, why can't people just use reason instead of believing lies?!


Thanks again.

If you spend a year designing a house....and someone copies the design without permission and without payment....Have you been robbed?

If you spend a year developing a compilation of songs.....and someone copies the songs without permission and without payment.....Have you been robbed?

My interpretation of what you are stating is that this isn't theft therefore the government should not have and enforce laws - Is this correct?

[fegunz]

If you spend a year designing a house....and someone copies the design without permission and without payment....Have you been robbed?

If you spend a year developing a compilation of songs.....and someone copies the songs without permission and without payment.....Have you been robbed?

I have answered these types of questions in great detail already so instead of explaining yet again that the creator has nothing less when someone copies a work maybe you could explain what exactly has been taken away from him.


If the house designer has been robbed, as you seem to be implying, then please show me what he no longer has.

If the song complier has been robbed then please show me what he no longer has.

Please do yourself a favor and instead of merely saying "that's robbery" SHOW what has been taken thus making your case. Afterall the burden of proof is on the accuser and you are accusing a copier of theft. Make your case already.

My interpretation of what you are stating is that this isn't theft therefore the government should not have and enforce laws - Is this correct?

Not entirely. Yes it's not theft (the creator isn't missing anything) but it does not follow that government should not make and enforce laws. All we are saying is that THIS particular law should be done away with since it's an immoral aggressive law that violates the "right and control of property"'; a principle that any member of the church should honor considering it's written in holy scripture...

[Original_Intent]

If you spend a year designing a house....and someone copies the design without permission and without payment....Have you been robbed?

If you spend a year developing a compilation of songs.....and someone copies the songs without permission and without payment.....Have you been robbed?

I have answered these types of questions in great detail already so instead of explaining yet again that the creator has nothing less when someone copies a work maybe you could explain what exactly has been taken away from him.


If the house designer has been robbed, as you seem to be implying, then please show me what he no longer has.

If the song complier has been robbed then please show me what he no longer has.

Please do yourself a favor and instead of merely saying "that's robbery" SHOW what has been taken thus making your case. Afterall the burden of proof is on the accuser and you are accusing a copier of theft. Make your case already.

My interpretation of what you are stating is that this isn't theft therefore the government should not have and enforce laws - Is this correct?

Not entirely. Yes it's not theft (the creator isn't missing anything) but it does not follow that government should not make and enforce laws. All we are saying is that THIS particular law should be done away with since it's an immoral aggressive law that violates the "right and control of property"'; a principle that any member of the church should honor considering it's written in holy scripture...

I'd love to respond, but due to previous commitments I need permission to do so... (does this count as a response? It's not intended to be, it is just a request for permission to respond...) O:-)

[Jason]

If you spend a year designing a house....and someone copies the design without permission and without payment....Have you been robbed?

If you spend a year developing a compilation of songs.....and someone copies the songs without permission and without payment.....Have you been robbed?

My interpretation of what you are stating is that this isn't theft therefore the government should not have and enforce laws - Is this correct?

Not entirely. Yes it's not theft but it does not follow that government should not make and enforce laws. All we are saying is that THIS particular law should be done away with since it's an immoral aggressive law that violates the "right and control of property" that should be honored.

Well I had found it pointless in continuing to speak with you but since you keep intervening.....I think its theft!

If I spend a year of my time and talents making a music compilation that someone then takes from me against my will and against legal contract....or yet worse distributes over the internet to a billion people who feel the same as you do....that they are entitled to the results of my labor without rewarding me according to my terms (via a free market).....its theft plain and simple!

You can rationalize it all you want with talk of dots on a paper or bytes on a hard drive....but its theft!

Best of luck to you both!

[fegunz]

I'd love to respond, but due to previous commitments I need permission to do so... (does this count as a response? It's not intended to be, it is just a request for permission to respond...) O:-)

You don't need my permission to respond but if you do you will be blatantly contradicting yourself since you were so sure before that it was the "end of line" and "we really have nothing more to say to each other."


That being said I welcome further debate myself. I never wanted to drop it to begin with.

[LoveIsTruth]

...

Well I had found it pointless in continuing to speak with you but since you keep intervening.....I think its theft!

If I spend a year of my time and talents making a music compilation that someone then takes from me against my will and against legal contract....or yet worse distributes over the internet to a billion people who feel the same as you do....that they are entitled to the results of my labor without rewarding me according to my terms (via a free market).....its theft plain and simple!

You can rationalize it all you want with talk of dots on a paper or bytes on a hard drive....but its theft!

Best of luck to you both!

No one is taking anything from you. You still have your songs. If you wish to receive reward for your work, the proper way to do so is:

• 1) by using your work yourself
  2) through contracts of first use of your work
  3) by asking for donations.

Not by using aggression against the property of others via immoral and improper use of government force.

You still have failed to answer what you have LESS of by someone copying your work. Your answer is: "I have less ability to collect money from people who use my work." True. But that is the nature of information: to know it IS to own it. The only proper way to benefit from the information you produced is to follow the three points I just outlined: 1) use it yourself, 2) secure contracts of first use, 3) ask for donations. To use government force to prevent people from using your information (if they are under no contract with you) is IMMORAL because:

• a) You do not have moral right to use force on your neighbor to prevent him from using your info.
  b) Since you do not have that right you cannot delegate it to your government.

Case closed.

[fegunz]

Well I had found it pointless in continuing to speak with you but since you keep intervening.....I think its theft!

And merely "thinking" it's theft does not make it so.

If I spend a year of my time and talents making a music compilation that someone then takes from me against my will

False. Copying music doesn't remove the original from your possession. If I copy your music compilation you STILL HAVE your music compilation to do with as you please. That's what copying does: it creates ANOTHER instance of that very thing so TWO DIFFERENT people can have and use it simultaneously without conflict. Again you have had NOTHING taken away from you if only a copy has been made.

and against legal contract

Not necessarily. If you loan me a book I have not agreed to any contract preventing me from copying it and thus am not breaking any such contract in making a copy.

or yet worse distributes over the internet to a billion people who feel the same as you do....that they are entitled to the results of my labor

As I already said I do NOT feel I am entitled to anyone's labor. I am however entitled to arrange my own property in any manner I please. Unfortunately you however feel that you are entitled to partial control and therefore partial ownership of MY tangible property in violation of the sacred principle of "right and control of property."

without rewarding me according to my terms (via a free market)

Terms with which I do not agree to. Again I am under no legitimate obligation to abide by terms you make up but I do NOT agree to.

.....its theft plain and simple!

And yet you still cannot show that you have had anything taken away from you. You claim music is taken from you yet YOU STILL HAVE IT and can do anything you want with it.


I can see you calling 9-11 now...
9-11 operator: 9-11 what is your emergency?
Mummy: I've been robbed!
9-11 operator: what did they take?
Mummy: nothing
9-11 operator: what's missing?
Mummy: nothing
9-11 operator: I don't understand sir, you claimed you've been robbed but you still have all of your property accounted for?
Mummy: yes but someone else arranged there own property in the same way I arranged mine!
9-11 operator: But nothing is missing? Nothing is gone? Nothing was taken?
Mummy: well yes but still someone else arranged there own property the same way I arranged mine!
9-11 operator: Sir please don't waste our time...

You can rationalize it all you want with talk of dots on a paper or bytes on a hard drive....but its theft!

And maybe if you say it enough times that will make it so right?! lol...


Again you can rationalize threatening violence upon peaceful people that are only arranging and selling there OWN tangible property but that will not change the fact that you are violating a holy principle written in scripture.

Did you get permission to copy this video clip or are you guilty of what you denounce as theft?

[Jason]

Well I had found it pointless in continuing to speak with you but since you keep intervening.....I think its theft!

If I spend a year of my time and talents making a music compilation that someone then takes from me against my will and against legal contract....or yet worse distributes over the internet to a billion people who feel the same as you do....that they are entitled to the results of my labor without rewarding me according to my terms (via a free market).....its theft plain and simple!

You can rationalize it all you want with talk of dots on a paper or bytes on a hard drive....but its theft!

Best of luck to you both!

No one is taking anything from you. You still have your songs. If you wish to receive reward for your work, the proper way to do so is:

• 1) by using your work yourself
  2) through contracts of first use of your work
  3) by asking for donations.

Not by using aggression against the property of others via immoral and improper use of government force.

You still have failed to answer what you have LESS of by someone copying your work. Your answer is: "I have less ability to collect money from people who use my work." True. But that is the nature of information: to know it IS to own it. The only proper way to benefit from the information you produced is to follow the three points I just outlined: 1) use it yourself, 2) secure contracts of first use, 3) ask for donations. To use government force to prevent people from using your information (if they are under no contract with you) is IMMORAL because:

• a) You do not have moral right to use force on your neighbor to prevent him from using your info.
  b) Since you do not have that right you cannot delegate it to your government.

Case closed.

So two wrongs make a right?

A guy in my ward and neighbor, is a musician. He spends a year and $20k in recording studio fees to produce a cd (his property which he has worked for and paid for) which he then sells copies of under the contract stipulation that no reproduction is authorized. A person buys the CD then breaks that contract to rip the cd and put the information on the internet. Then you and your fan club come along and download the cd claiming that you have the right to organize the bytes on your hard drive however you like......and you say that isn't stealing. And if my neighbor doesn't like it....he should ask for donations. And to top it off....you claim that he isn't entitled to protection of his property.

You guys are some real peaches!!!

[1984Orwellherenow]

This entire argument relies on the premise that good government can protect tangible things but not intangible things. Sounds like a case of selective application to me.

FYI, intangibles can be carried into heaven and tangibles are left behind. Which do you think are more important to protect.

Orwell For The Win!

[fegunz]

So two wrongs make a right?

Neither of us have advocated stealing, breaking contracts, or any other wrong unlike yourself which is advocating aggressively violating the property rights of countless individuals which is also contrary to a principle contained in canonized scripture. How you can continue to advocate violating the word of God is beyond me...

A guy in my ward and neighbor, is a musician. He spends a year and $20k in recording studio fees to produce a cd (his property which he has worked for and paid for) which he then sells copies of under the contract stipulation that no reproduction is authorized.

1. Where is the so-called contract? I have never seen any such contract presented before me before purchasing a CD... How can it be claimed that anyone is entering such a contract when they don't even see this so-called contract before purchase?

2. Where is the proof that the purchaser agreed to such a contract? Did he sign something? Did he verbally agree? How exactly did he give consent cause I sure don't remember doing so myself. In fact if I had the opportunity I would be willing to make sure it's known that I do NOT consent to any such contract.

A person buys the CD then breaks that contract to rip the cd

Show me the contract and then show me the proof any purchaser agreed to the terms BEFORE purchase.

and put the information on the internet. Then you and your fan club come along and download the cd claiming that you have the right to organize the bytes on your hard drive however you like......and you say that isn't stealing.

Correct. If something has been stolen from him then I again invite you to explain to me what exactly has been removed from his possession. What is he no longer able to use?

And if my neighbor doesn't like it....he should ask for donations.

Or move on to providing some other valuable good or service.

And to top it off....you claim that he isn't entitled to protection of his property.

Straw man. We have never claimed he is not entitled to protection of his property.

What I am saying is that "intellectual property" is a misnomer. It cannot be treated as if it's tangible property nor can the same rules and rights govern it. There are many reasons for this but the main ones include the fact that it's not scarce, it can be simultaneously controlled by everyone without conflict, and it necessarily conflicts with tangible property.

Let's compare a physical CD with a song: The physical CD is scarce since there isn't an infinite supply of them (which consequently is where it's price arises). The physical CD cannot be simultaneously controlled and used by multiple people; there individual desires for how to use and control the CD would conflict which is why property rights exist to assign an owner: the one with the exclusive right to control it's usage.

A song however, which is an arrangement of notes, isn't scare since that specific arrangement can infinitely be replicated by almost anyone in many ways (which consequently is why the natural price of something digital approaches zero). This particular arrangement of notes CAN be simultaneously controlled and used by multiple people; each and every individual can use his copy of the arrangement of notes as he pleases without conflicting with anyone else's usage of it. So literally there is no need or purpose to property rights in such arrangements: there is no need or legitimate purpose to assigning only person with the exclusive right to control it's usage since ALL can do so independently of each other. Furthermore to assign only one person to have the exclusive right to control it's usage denies everyone else the usage of there tangible property and literally gives the "owner" an aggressive, government forced, monopoly.

You guys are some real peaches!!!

Thanks I am from Georgia!

[fegunz]

This entire argument relies on the premise that good government can protect tangible things but not intangible things. Sounds like a case of selective application to me.

The gaping flaw in your reasoning is that good government can protect both yet the entire concept of "intellectual property" necessarily VIOLATES the "right and control" of tangible property.


The ONLY way "intellectual property" can be "protected" from being copied is by aggressively denying the tangible property rights of others. The ONLY way tangible property rights can be protected is if all "intellectual property" law is abolished. The two cannot coexist when there very natures are in conflict with each other.

FYI, intangibles can be carried into heaven and tangibles are left behind. Which do you think are more important to protect.

False dichotomy. Doing away with "intellectual property" law does not and will not destroy ideas, songs, arts, and inventions. Man survived and created all such things for centuries without such laws.


Principles in the scriptures cannot contradict themselves so neither can the concept of the "right and control of property". Unless you believe God contradicts himself in scripture this means that property rights cannot conflict and they do not if you toss out the illogical and immoral claim that intangibles are "property."

Orwell For The Win!

Address my rebuttal then we'll see who wins.

[1984Orwellherenow]

This entire argument relies on the premise that good government can protect tangible things but not intangible things. Sounds like a case of selective application to me.

The gaping flaw in your reasoning is that good government can protect both yet the entire concept of "intellectual property" necessarily VIOLATES the "right and control" of tangible property.


The ONLY way "intellectual property" can be "protected" from being copied is by aggressively denying the tangible property rights of others. The ONLY way tangible property rights can be protected is if all "intellectual property" law is abolished. The two cannot coexist when there very natures are in conflict with each other.

Dude, I like totally get what you are saying and stuff, but check this out. I created a destruction machine that like, totally wants to destroy, and, like, you're totally violating my rights of destruction by protecting your property by false government. Ya see?

Orwell FTW!

I already owned this stuff. That's on top of the ownage Mummy piled up. Add it all together and you've been owned, burried, reclaimed, and owned again!

But it's all good. I wouldn't have responded if your ideas didn't either make me think quite a bit extra, or, were worthy of sarcastic treatment. Your writings were the former, and I applaud the effort.

Address my rebuttal then we'll see who wins.

You have to rebutify first, homie. Win, win, win!

[fegunz]

Dude, I like totally get what you are saying and stuff, but check this out. I created a destruction machine that like, totally wants to destroy, and, like, you're totally violating my rights of destruction by protecting your property by false government. Ya see?

No I don't. I genuinely don't understand your point... It seems like you are saying I am advocating destroying property yet I never have advocated such a thing. Keep in mind copying something does not destroy or even change the original in anyway. Try again.

[1984Orwellherenow]

No I don't. I genuinely don't understand your point... It seems like you are saying I am advocating destroying property yet I never have advocated such a thing. Keep in mind copying something does not destroy or even change the original in anyway. Try again.

Dudes, you didn't get it dudes. Property is, like, totally property, dudes. It's like, if it's tangible or intangible, like, dudes, you can't like, use it to hurt others, dudes, ya know? Like, my stuff can't be used to hurt your stuff, regardless of how much you want to use your stuff to hurt my stuff, ya know?

Dudes, it's like that question if God is so great, can He, like, create a being greater than Him? Ya know, dudes? It's like, so circular, to, like, get the warped stuff into perspective that ya lose the perspective, ya know? If ya don't, dudes,...

[Jason]

So two wrongs make a right?

Neither of us have advocated stealing, breaking contracts, or any other wrong unlike yourself which is advocating aggressively violating the property rights of countless individuals which is also contrary to a principle contained in canonized scripture. How you can continue to advocate violating the word of God is beyond me...

A guy in my ward and neighbor, is a musician. He spends a year and $20k in recording studio fees to produce a cd (his property which he has worked for and paid for) which he then sells copies of under the contract stipulation that no reproduction is authorized.

1. Where is the so-called contract? I have never seen any such contract presented before me before purchasing a CD... How can it be claimed that anyone is entering such a contract when they don't even see this so-called contract before purchase?

2. Where is the proof that the purchaser agreed to such a contract? Did he sign something? Did he verbally agree? How exactly did he give consent cause I sure don't remember doing so myself. In fact if I had the opportunity I would be willing to make sure it's known that I do NOT consent to any such contract.

A person buys the CD then breaks that contract to rip the cd

Show me the contract and then show me the proof any purchaser agreed to the terms BEFORE purchase.

and put the information on the internet. Then you and your fan club come along and download the cd claiming that you have the right to organize the bytes on your hard drive however you like......and you say that isn't stealing.

Correct. If something has been stolen from him then I again invite you to explain to me what exactly has been removed from his possession. What is he no longer able to use?

And if my neighbor doesn't like it....he should ask for donations.

Or move on to providing some other valuable good or service.

And to top it off....you claim that he isn't entitled to protection of his property.

Straw man. We have never claimed he is not entitled to protection of his property.

What I am saying is that "intellectual property" is a misnomer. It cannot be treated as if it's tangible property nor can the same rules and rights govern it. There are many reasons for this but the main ones include the fact that it's not scarce, it can be simultaneously controlled by everyone without conflict, and it necessarily conflicts with tangible property.

Let's compare a physical CD with a song: The physical CD is scarce since there isn't an infinite supply of them (which consequently is where it's price arises). The physical CD cannot be simultaneously controlled and used by multiple people; there individual desires for how to use and control the CD would conflict which is why property rights exist to assign an owner: the one with the exclusive right to control it's usage.

A song however, which is an arrangement of notes, isn't scare since that specific arrangement can infinitely be replicated by almost anyone in many ways (which consequently is why the natural price of something digital approaches zero). This particular arrangement of notes CAN be simultaneously controlled and used by multiple people; each and every individual can use his copy of the arrangement of notes as he pleases without conflicting with anyone else's usage of it. So literally there is no need or purpose to property rights in such arrangements: there is no need or legitimate purpose to assigning only person with the exclusive right to control it's usage since ALL can do so independently of each other. Furthermore to assign only one person to have the exclusive right to control it's usage denies everyone else the usage of there tangible property and literally gives the "owner" an aggressive, government forced, monopoly.

You guys are some real peaches!!!

Thanks I am from Georgia!

Its stamped on the CD....called copyright! Get it...."copy" "right". I guess you are in need of a harsher and more stringent contract.....

[LoveIsTruth]

No I don't. I genuinely don't understand your point... It seems like you are saying I am advocating destroying property yet I never have advocated such a thing. Keep in mind copying something does not destroy or even change the original in anyway. Try again.

Dudes, you didn't get it dudes. Property is, like, totally property, dudes. It's like, if it's tangible or intangible, like, dudes, you can't like, use it to hurt others, dudes, ya know? Like, my stuff can't be used to hurt your stuff, regardless of how much you want to use your stuff to hurt my stuff, ya know?

Dudes, it's like that question if God is so great, can He, like, create a being greater than Him? Ya know, dudes? It's like, so circular, to, like, get the warped stuff into perspective that ya lose the perspective, ya know? If ya don't, dudes,...

Congratulations, you are making just as much sense as the defenders of copyrights and patents do, which is about ZERO.

Goes to show that your position does not have basis in logic, reason, scripture or truth.

[LoveIsTruth]

Original_Intent, do chime in, at least your arguments seemed to be more intellectually honest (though flawed). If you feel you cannot respond to fegunz, you can still respond to me. Let's reason this out as honest men, because I sincerely believe you are honest.

Thanks.

[armedtotheteeth]

loveistruth and fugunz, as an interesting experiment, you should both start copying and distributing church intellectual property such as the old handbook of instruction, the temple vids and so on. Would you call the 12 and the 1st Presidency to repentance for "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it," as they send their world class litigation team (the ones who have fought many people stealing and distributing like wiki leaks and others) to rip you shreds in a court room?

Also if it is wrong to copyright your mental property, are the brethren, who enjoy writing and publishing books, sinning because they stock Desert Book full of protected books that they have as solo monopoly on as the writer, just so they can make a profit on a copy of a copy of a copy?

In church as you nod off daydreaming of posting your pathetic arguments about ripping people off of truly hard and sometimes heartbreaking work, you may of noticed on all the church manuals a lil circled ‘c’ with the following words ‘all rights reserved.’ I wonder who decided to put that there? The 1st Presidency and the 12? Under who’s direction? We all know who's direction.

Copyrights give the author(s) control of their property.

Is this not the true church? Do we not have holy and righteous men called by God running it? Why would they "aggressively denying the owners of tangible property there right and control of it.” Your arguments are so incredibly flawed. I will not waste my time arguing the philosophy of man, when the church, Christ’s kingdom on earth copyrights everything if produces.

If you can break away from the Ron Paul forum long enough to watch conference in a week or so, you will notice, either before or after the televised conference…………UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THESE BRODCASTS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS! Or something along those lines. Quit looking beyond the mark. The only circled argument is the false one you two are spinning!

[fegunz]

Dudes, you didn't get it dudes. Property is, like, totally property, dudes. It's like, if it's tangible or intangible, like, dudes, you can't like, use it to hurt others, dudes, ya know? Like, my stuff can't be used to hurt your stuff, regardless of how much you want to use your stuff to hurt my stuff, ya know?

Dudes, it's like that question if God is so great, can He, like, create a being greater than Him? Ya know, dudes? It's like, so circular, to, like, get the warped stuff into perspective that ya lose the perspective, ya know? If ya don't, dudes,...

Your incessant use of "dude" and other distracting grammar and vocabulary makes it's impossible for me to understand you.