Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

No, my entire thing has always been based on possession being the crime. The current law is written to outlaw creation too, but I don't see how that could stay if creating 99 counterfeits is legal, as proving this was the 100th counterfeit you made would be a challenge.

Even if the middleman flipped, unless you made them in front of them you could say you got them from someone else.

Yes, they may eventually be able to pin it on you, but under the current system they can instantly charge anyone that is a serious counterfeiter and ignore someone who counterfeit one stamp. They don't need to bother making someone flip then somehow proving you've made at least 100 stamps.

I will say, this explains most of our disagreement, with a bit more coming from my opinion that making this a misdemeanor would still allow some abuse, depending on the punishments.

And I'm done, I no longer find this fun. I don't think the current law is being used to unjustly punish people, and that's good enough for me.




> No, my entire thing has always been based on possession being the crime.

Then why did you say "if the law only forbid counterfeiting 100 stamps"??

I'm done too, because my entire argument was based on what you actually said, not what you secretly meant and never clarified.

Also the "unless you made them in front of them" excuse about proof could be applied to making even 1. You're grasping at straws to make conviction sound more difficult than it is.


This may shock you, but I spent about twenty seconds on my original comment. I certainly didn't have an editor go over it to ensure my actual point of view was getting across. Hell, you can see the edit I made showing when I realized we may be talking past eachother with possess/create.


> I spent about twenty seconds on my original comment.

You then kept defending it.

> you can see the edit I made

Even after that, you were still insisting there were loopholes.


>Even after that, you were still insisting there were loopholes.

After clarifying my position, I figured you'd either reply with "yes, we were on different wavelengths" or you'd accept we were talking about possession. So when you continued, I assumed you were talking about possession too. My mistake.


That's why I referred back to "the original", but you misunderstood what I meant there.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: