I can claim "the prohibition stopped alcohol being consumed", and I would be right On the other hand, a counter-claim that "no it didn't, there were speakeasies" is not correct
Why? Because the response does not address the original statement. It's actually a counter to the claim that "the prohibition stopped ALL alcohol being consumed" Likewise, I don't believe anyone in this thread honestly believes that "software patents stop ALL innovation", only that "software patents stop innovation" The burden of proof is on therefore believers in patents, to demonstrate that there wouldn't be more innovation without them. There's no need for opponents to prove that patents are stopping all innovation, because that was never the original claim. 2010/9/14 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I think the problem is that the premise "law X can't be harming activity >> Y, because activity Y still continues" is fundamentally flawed. >> > > Not if it's in response to the claim that "law X is preventing Y from > happening". > > Y *is* happening, so the premise that X is preventing it from happening is > obviously incorrect. > > -- > Cédric > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
