But it scratched his eye as a normal cat.

I think wendigoon did a video on it?

What's that supposed to be? Looks like a weird clip.

So Sam is probably still in college.

This story is fun! Thanks!

Fright Night?

I liked this backrooms arc.

Is this like the backrooms?

I don't know if you appreciate suggestions, but a universe that I think will fit this story well is the Evil tv show. Not really caught up so I can't say if its demonic stuff is real or psychological human stuff. But either way.

Any one of those would be cool.

It was a hilarious mental image though. Horror movie vibes, a priest in robes, a bound child possessed by evil... And suddenly the priest pulls out a pistol and begins "exorcising" haha

You got it. Didn't expect that reference to be noticed lol

Love it! I disappeared for a bit lol, but I enjoyed catching up again!

Do you have any other arguments or are we ending this debate here? To sum yours up, you've said it didn't exist so it wasn't theft. And that it's theft if there could be profit from the original author. But there isn't. I think I've countered all of that pretty well using your definition. I also argued with another definition that I favor much more because it doesn't make me feel like a commodity for lawyers to puppet. And those points are untouched.

You haven't refuted my arguments except to call both irrelevant when they perfectly answer yours. I'm just not letting you box the conversation up how you want it. You say "Nope, they can't reach him so by this profit definition it's not theft." then I get to say "In the future they could find him, making it theft by your definition." You really really want to be the only one who gets to do that and I'm not handing you this debate for no reason lol

It wasn't a tangent. It was a counter argument. "Intellectual property exists for the sole reason that it's creator can profit off it." to suggest it wasn't theft because the author couldn't know or get to him.

I'm not moving on from the old universe. It is very relevant and I'm not giving up my counterargument because I'm currently winning this debate. You've slid from "It doesn't exist." (*It does) to "There's no profit." (*There can be.) and now you're trying to say my strong argument is not relevant as a line drawn in the sand. With no arguments to enforce that. Dude, no.

To show why I don't think government or profit defines theft, imagine yourself in pre-history when there wasn't a government over all of our heads. If you took my stick you stole it. It doesn't matter that there wasn't a government there to define what theft is. And your ability to reach the person stealing from you doesn't decide whether or not you were stolen from. I could get someone's card and have an Amazon buying spree free of punishment. I've stolen that money.

Idk what you're talking about here. How would those examples translate to someone taking intellectual property somewhere else and profiting from? And if you're going to draw the line at portals being silly we were already there when we started arguing about different universes and defining theft for an isekai person.

You still aren't getting it. I am arguing this because you said it didn't exist yet. Forget the current universe and remember the old one. It DOES exist so your first argument is false. Next you said there was no profit motive and since that's how we're defining theft here I want on to give an example of how profit motive could exist. I don't even like that way of defining it, but it was easy to counter so I accepted it.