But you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty refuting it. Maybe it's because you say the same thing over and over again, and ignore what I've said?
You don't seem to understand that personal finances are tightly coupled with your argument: You are saying that P2P muds shouldn't occupy a spot in the list because they can afford to buy an advertisement. I am saying that this point is impractical to apply because some free mud administrators can also afford buy an advertisement. You said yourself that you don't want to take into account personal finances, which demonstrates the impracticality of your logic. This is a central premise of your argument on the immorality of the issue, and without it your conclusion completely falls apart.
Furthermore, your argument makes complete sense to me, and I understand it fully. But remember way back there on the second page, where I requested that you give an attribute of P2P muds that decided the immorality of the issue? Your only attempt at giving one -- that they can afford an advertisement -- is what I have shown to be completely impractical to apply, and you've puzzingly decided to ignore it?
I don't see how you can honestly say that it has no relevance here, given the evidence I've laid out for you.
One point does not a circle make, Orion. Circular logic occurs when one point is used to 'prove' another point, and then that point is then used to 'prove' the point that was used to prove it. Repeating the same thing in response to all of my questions is most certainly circular; it shows that you take your argument as a given.
Have a little maturity, will you? We're all adults here.
|