Ah! I see another zinger. But I'm not trying to zing you. Frankly, I was trying to suss out how off-your-rocker you might be.

I mentioned Orwell because I was trying to throw you a bone. I was trying to show that I was engaging with you: to find some conceptual connection to what you wrote.

Looking back, this feels a little like the motte-and-bailey fallacy: you started off by making a ridiculous claim ("Copyright law demands that everyone play along with the lie that is intellectual monopoly"). Much later you "retreat" to calling it a metaphor.

You might have known it was metaphor all along, but if so, why did you double down? Why persist? Again, I think there is high chance that you like the reaction you get. It seems to me that people often seek attention in this way. There is a downside: many people seeing the kind of language you used will think "loony!" and stop engaging.

Attempting to convince people by exaggerated metaphor can of course work! But if it does, I don't think you really want to take credit for it. People that easily swayed are not a prize worth counting. Besides, if you only "win" someone's agreement by rhetoric, you can expect the next person will "win" that same mind by some subsequent emotional appeal. Careful choice of words might take longer but it has less blowback. Rhetoric is the fast food of persuasion. (Yes, I can use metaphor too!)

Nothing personal. For years, I've attempted to discuss things with people that seem puzzling and/or stubborn. Thanks for discussing.