You’re being pedantic in the cases you want while complaining to others when they are differently pedantic. I’m not stooping to pretending to misunderstand due to pedantry.

If you are using the term theft colloquially, which most of us are as this is not a court, legal journal, economic journal, etc. Given that colloquial means the way people generally speak, as we are now, theft has a meaning: taking something that’s not yours through force or trickery. That would mean fraud is a type of theft in this case and not a different thing altogether.

So be a pedant I guess but it’s boring and lazy-brained.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm all in favour of people being pedantic, especially in the case of laws.

If you are using the term theft colloquially

I'm not, "theft" is misused all the time. It's something that the copyright cartels encourage because they get to pretend that copyright infringement is theft. It's not. We should push back and say theft has to meet certain conditions, and copyright infringement isn't theft. Nor is "wage theft", which is a form of fraud.

By buying into the colloquial definition of "theft" and expanding the scope to be any time someone is inconvenienced, you give the copyright cartels power to make people think copyright infringement is as bad as actual real theft, when it's clearly not.

[–] floppade@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you’re not going to use the term in a colloquial context while you are in a colloquial setting, then you need to cite what source you are referencing for your definition. Given that you are talking about laws, then you need to recognize that every place defines things differently according to the law. So which law, where?

Being unnecessarily argumentative and snobby while at the same time not meeting your own standards is ridiculous.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Nah, no need to go to laws, just use a dictionary.