Because without that interpretation your point becomes moot. In that case your argument is, "Well, according to my idiosyncratic definition of 'piracy' what you're describing is a bit of an abnormal form of piracy." Okay? Therefore...? The conclusion you were aiming at was the idea that what I was describing was not piracy.
The conclusion I was aiming at was the idea that what you were describing was not the kind of piracy I (or I believe anyone else in the topic) was talking about, namely the way piracy is normally done.
You're falling into sophistries of various kinds in ways that I haven't seen you do before.
My supposed "sophistries" seem to be the result of you misunderstanding or misrepresenting my position. And it keeps happening. Even after I explicitly denied making the claim you said I did, you then in your very next message, while
replying to the post where I denied it, claimed again I made it.
I will take this as a concession, including the concession that your property materialism has been shown to fail.
My statement essentially said "I don't think this is going anywhere and I'm tired of you constantly misrepresenting my views". That doesn't seem like a concession, but I suppose I can't prevent you from taking it as such if you want. But the fact is, I (and everyone else) has only so much free time, and time spent arguing on a forum is time that could be spent on other things. I'm sure you and everyone else has plenty of times you see someone post something you disagree with, but you don't take the time to respond because it would take time away from other things,
just like you've done in this very topic. So when it comes to making a response to something, the question is, is what I am accomplishing with the argument worth the time spent? Possible goals for arguing something are:
1) Convince the other person.
2) Check to see if the other person can convince you of their viewpoint
3) Convince anyone watching the argument
There are other potential goals, but those (at least for me) are the main ones.
When making or continuing an argument, I or for that matter anyone else has to weigh various factors factors to determine if they think it is worth their time, including the amount of time that would be required, likelihood of accomplishing any of the above three points (or accomplishing any other motivation they might have for arguing), and the amount they
want to argue or continue arguing the issue (which itself is the result of various different factors).
In regards to this specific argument, neither #1 or #2 seem likely to happen at this point. That leaves #3. No one else seems to be participating in our sub-argument at this point, so I am unsure if there is anyone to persuade. There usually are some silent onlookers in any forum thread that could perhaps be persuaded, but even if there are I also think it is unlikely after this amount of back-and-forth anyone who wasn't convinced (or moved towards being convinced) by me is going to be convinced by further arguing of me on the subject (however, should any "third party" observer want a response to a
specific point they feel I left unanswered, I might be interested in doing so). As it would take a while to go through everything, seems unlikely to accomplish any of the goals I listed to an extent not already accomplished, and is an issue I'm having less interest in arguing about now (it's not something I'm extremely passionate about, and I also find the debate frustrating due to things like the misunderstandings), it doesn't seem to me that spending the additional time would be worth it.
Like I said, ordinarily I would have just not replied and left it at that. People leave online debates without further comment all the time, and I'll rarely begrudge someone for deciding their time would be spent on other things and quitting an online debate without further comment, or consider it some kind of automatic concession. I opted to respond because two of your misrepresentations of what I was saying were so flagrant and so baffling to me I felt I had to at least make a point to correct those, but at that point I felt I owed an explanation for why I responded to only those and didn't go further.
Of course, I'm sure someone could snark "well, for someone who said they didn't think the debate was worth spending more time on, you sure were willing to spend time explaining why you didn't think it was worth spending more time on." And it is a little funny that I ended up spending time arguing why I
didn't want to spend time arguing something else. However, I believe this post probably took less time to do than a response on the original points would have, seems more likely to accomplish the standard goals I laid out, and I also put higher importance on defending myself on this than I do on trying to argue the original point.
One final point on that. If my reluctance to continue arguing the point counts as a "concession", then it seems I must conclude that you have conceded to partinobodycular that piracy is perfectly moral. Earlier in the topic, when responding to them, you said:
I don't see that you are much interested in telling the truth, and I am not much interested in speaking with those who are not interested in telling the truth.
So you said you weren't interested in speaking further with them, and you haven't given any response to any of their subsequent posts or arguments. By your standards, it seems like partinobodycular can consider you to have conceded to them that piracy is morally correct.
I do appreciate that you are trying to avoid giving further impression that piracy is legitimate or permissible.
I think it seems permissible--ethically, at least--in some circumstances. But I wouldn't go as far as partinobodycular seems to be doing.