Shit, can you imagine daily background checks in the US? Also, "I have guns, not friends"? Could it be you're an insufferable asshole? Take a little personal responsibility and maybe don't take every little thing as an assault on your existence. Sucks they feel like they have to hide who they are though.

You are projecting your own emotions onto my comments if you think this is lambasting.

But here is some since you enjoy it so much:

Not only do you know what every farm in the world is like, you also know how much or little personal experience I have with this topic as well. Why are you wasting your time on this website when you could be using your powers to do good in the world?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Ha, very true. But I think people love to have their little personal bubble privacy. That's pretty much the only thing I like about cars actually.

You are right. They have taken it to a very extreme level. However, I can see their rationale to it. It's essentially a domino effect in that if the first person hadn't leaked it, then the 100k others wouldn't have gotten ahold of it. Does that make each one worth $450k . . . no.

I wouldn't mind seeing massive piraters sued for the monetary value of everything in their playlist (i.e., if it's a buck off iTunes, and they have 100k sounds, then they stole 100k.)

To say that every pirated piece is a lost sale, you are correct to say no. However, it still makes it a theft. While I technically didn't lose money . . . you still stole it. That's why I believe in ad revenue such as iTunes Radio, Pandora, I heart Radio etc. So I get doubly pissed when content providers make a song free via advertising, and then people bitch about that. lol Like, Hulu.

People normally pay $100/mo to watch 14 minutes of commercials per hour, but complain when they pay nothing to watch only 3 minutes worth.

I was all for ad revenue, except, my brother and I sold graphics. Not exactly something we could put ads on. We actually had people who'd buy it from us, and then throw it up on their site for a fraction of the price….

In that regard, if someone is profiting off my work, then the fabled revenue lost is 100% tangible. So for Megaupload et al who made real money (not just legit P2P sharing) I'm all for sticking them with the maximum fine possible. If I make a piece of digital goods and you make $1,000 off it, then that's my grand, not yours.

Which is why there are big stock photo/video sites who basically screw over the little person but are at least legit. They pay their up loaders, albeit small amounts, to generate profit off having tons of content. Way more content than any one individual can create. So the same as Megaupload, only, they're not stealing or encouraging people indirectly to use their service to host any and all files you'd like to share while we knowingly look the other way towards our profit margins.

Anyway, that's mostly a rant at this point. :-p

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Why is a heartbeat so important? Deer have heartbeats and yet, every fall, the forests are filled with armed Republicans.
Since we clearly only care about killing humans, if a line is to be drawn in the sand, then I say it needs to be on the basis of the development of a definitively human quality in the fetus.
I must have missed your comment earlier and wanted to reply, but the latest three replies in that thread were already mine, and the last one is, to me, the most important, so I figured I'd reply here.



I put the heartbeat comment in parentheses because it wasn't the point in itself, but illustrative of how quickly the fetus develops. After seeing my own developing children on an ultrasound, I can understand the reasoning behind the "mandatory pre-operative ultrasound" legislation a few states have instituted. I was very surprised by how quickly things go from "dark blob" to "vaguely humanoid" to "little person" and I suspect a non-trivial proportion of people seeking abortion may be as uninformed about it as I was. I was not at all expecting to hear their heartbeats when we did, which is why the heartbeat illustration carries weight with me.

I think your "line in the sand" is a perfectly rational approach. I disagree personally, but I can appreciate that you're taking a reasoned approach and I would be willing to accept it as a basis for legislation on the matter.
It gets problematic when we attempt to define "a definitively human quality". On one extreme, a human fetus is and will be a human fetus. On the other extreme, even newborns only look human, and exhibit few, if any, behaviors that distinguish them from primates. (Primate rights, or animal rights in general being another hot potato, tying in to the "only care about killing humans" sentiment.)

What, to you, would constitute a "definitively human quality"? Limbs? Beginning of neural development?
(This directly ties into what I think is that "most important question", so if you'd like to reply in the original thread, that's great.)

The little person is the best dancer.

Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.

>>> You believe it's 'possible to be ignorant without being hateful' but the pro-gay 'agendists' as well as politically-correct foot soldiers don't see it that way. It's easier to use intimidation and shackling free speech than send "new" ideas through the meat grinder of public debate.

>>> If there was a homosexual gene that could be detected very early, the odds are parents more numerous than you would approve of would abort the child. I'M not saying homosexuality is a genetic defect, but it is a less desirable trait, like being born a little person or missing limbs is less desirable.

The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues.

>>> I hate hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Labeling Others Who Disagree simply as "haters" is the easy way out. It's easy to demand "equality" when you think that burden doesn't befall you, but the reality is that actions in this world have consequences. Do you know the facts and figures (mental health stats, disease rates) regarding homosexuality? Some of these problems are exacerbated by society/by intolerance, but the disease rates and promiscuity among gay males is tragic without blaming society. The left is doing no one any favors by hiding the ugly side of life, any more than the local paper does when they hide the race of at-large criminals to avoid being perceived as racist.

I also get the feeling that you are not very introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad individual behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.

>>> Brushing aside these gentle ad hominem aspersions (all incorrect BTW) once you become (more) conservative, you can't go back. Like the atheisifters who at one time sincerely believed in God but now don't---it's the exact same feeling. It's knowing that in life there are no 'solutions', only tradeoffs, and that global wealth, while steadily growing, is still finite and has alternate uses which make choosing how to utilize it important.

>>> If you claim you are against "intolerance", then you can't be halfway in. You can't righteously condemn Whitey or Straightey for exercising a right to free speech, then remain silent when Minority does the exact same thing, giving a free pass due to "past injustices".


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Someone who believes homosexuality is wrong is ignorant in the formal sense of the word: lacking in knowledge and experience. Hate is very often paired with ignorance (often times fueled by it), but I believe it is possible to be ignorant without being hateful.
The way you write about gay people and other minorities gives the impression that you have some hate issues. I also get the feeling that you are not very introspective, and are probably unaware of these issues. You likely were raised by extremely conservative people in an extremely conservative part of the country, and your prejudice issues have been internalized to a point that is beyond repair. This makes me sympathetic for you, actually. You know how you always complain about liberals blaming bad individual behavior on societal factors? You benefit greatly from this phenomena.
Either way - hate or ignorance - it's not something you should be proud of, and definitely not something you should admit to in an internet forum with a penchant for social justice.
An honest question deserves an honest answer. >> ^quantumushroom:
So it's not possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without being a "hater?"
Bullshit.

@NetRunner It would be over simplistic for me to say what "the real problem" is, I was pointing out "a" problem I see with certain mindsets. But surely, the people you mention do exist, and to that I mean people who want a certain degree of leeway in those they help. A person who spends a good deal of his time taking care of his body may find it slightly repulsive to pay for the care of someone whom has not taken care of himself, and perhaps rightly so. The shoe exists on the other foot as well, I am not blind to those who very little personal action was taken but very much social/economic/political benefit was reaped. Often have I toyed around with different ways of managing property rights and such to eliminate or make more difficult the position of the freeloading, powerful man.

I don't deny the need of government, nor would I suggest its eradication. My objection was more in line with "how" people are solving the problem of a non-functional government. Forgive me, but having been to several protests now, I find them moronic. It plays out like children jumping on a bed in a stew of anger. Some of Cobert's recent shows on OWS, and before it, the Tea Party stuff made me laugh to tears as I so greatly identified with is complaints. The overall event of a rally is a dogmatic, simplistic, and mostly naive portrayal of the problems, and to rant about even more dogmatic, arbitrary and simplistic solutions. To be forthright, I am an introvert. Large groups of people will, in time, always annoy me, and as such, I admit that perhaps there is something different about a rally that I don't understand. Some kind of comradery in spouting babbling cheers, sitting a public place for no real objective, and making a ruckus. It would seem that most of a rally is about being seen, and I would rather not be. Instead, I would rather be unseen, but actually affecting. It seems more beneficial as a rally only can indirectly change something, where as any other course of direct action has a real effect. For instance, if I were mad about jobs, the last thing I would do is OWS, I would instead seek to create a job fair.

And that was my main point, rallying seems to be the battle cry for those whom want solutions to be created by someone else. Why waste your time and money supporting a rally instead of the cause itself? I used to not have this world view. But, I hold now that spending your energies directly addressing the problem is more beneficial, in large, than trying to bring "awareness" to it. Perhaps I am wrong, though, and some level of awareness is needed just to enact the more hidden, direct changes, hard to say.

The reason I mentioned any of this was because of the position Mr. Moore took up on Obama. He talked about how it was young people that got him elected, that he didn't do the job he was elected to do exactly the way he laid it out, so they became disenfranchised. That was my main concern, and it would seem that those who fall victim to this are the same that think rallying will do anything other than have a rally. As a libertarian minded person, the last thing I am looking to do is give people less of a voice, my aim is almost always entirely the opposite. My objection was that outsourcing your voice to something that is only going to indirectly help you might not be the best course of action. Mad about wall street, fine, but do you still have a 401k? Often times, we are, esoterically, part of the problem and it is that kind of conversation you won't find at a rally. We are always in the right, and we were always wronged by some evil third party...a great children's story, but more often than not, not exactly true.

Sorry for the long rant. More poor command of the egrish usually means I babble on.

So I guess Ill ask the obvious question is he the first little person to win? Because thats big news other than the fact that he won.

1st little person im sure is warwick davis

@marinara I love how no one ever mentions the rest of that proverb

That little blond vegetarian seemed like a sensible little person. Bet she turns out really ambitious and annoying.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

Shiny, lets assume for a moment that you're right, there is an after life, mr. god will judge us when we die and send us to the corner of shame and eternal hellfire to think about what we've done.
Fine, so I guess we can at least agree on one thing: until that day comes I will actually live, embrace life with all its temptation and unholiness, indulge the devil's ways and blaspheme my ass off, live, love, fuck, drink, hate, whatever the fuck I can get away with. And you, you sad little person, when that day comes you'll be as sad as you are today, you and the countless others who are an affront to life it self. And y'know what? I'll pick hellfire with the likes of Hitchens over your divine garden of twats any day.


I'm glad we could get all of this out in the open. Yes, you're free to do whatever you want. Like any other slack jawed yokel idiot, you can live life the charlie sheen way, shallowly indulging yourself in all the puerile tripe you identify with a winning lifestyle. But, as I mentioned earlier sin isn't allowed in Heaven. It will be plucked out like it never existed. All those who delight in wickedness will be punished for it so that is what you have to look forward to if you don't repent.

As far as being "an affront to life itself", I support life, I love life. It's people like you who think they're entitled to do any fucked up thing they'd like..ie, if it feels good do it, who are ruining society. People with no scruples or charity, characterized mainly by their lack of tolerance and narrow mindedness. People who enjoy sinning, get some sort of rush out of it. Well, it's an ugly thing you do, to yourself and to others. It's a shittier world that you create. So don't be surprised when you get shit in return.

In reply to this comment by NinjaInHeat:
Shiny, lets assume for a moment that you're right, there is an after life, mr. god will judge us when we die and send us to the corner of shame and eternal hellfire to think about what we've done.

Fine, so I guess we can at least agree on one thing: until that day comes I will actually live, embrace life with all its temptation and unholiness, indulge the devil's ways and blaspheme my ass off, live, love, fuck, drink, hate, whatever the fuck I can get away with. And you, you sad little person, when that day comes you'll be as sad as you are today, you and the countless others who are an affront to life it self. And y'know what? I'll pick hellfire with the likes of Hitchens over your divine garden of twats any day.

Shiny, lets assume for a moment that you're right, there is an after life, mr. god will judge us when we die and send us to the corner of shame and eternal hellfire to think about what we've done.

Fine, so I guess we can at least agree on one thing: until that day comes I will actually live, embrace life with all its temptation and unholiness, indulge the devil's ways and blaspheme my ass off, live, love, fuck, drink, hate, whatever the fuck I can get away with. And you, you sad little person, when that day comes you'll be as sad as you are today, you and the countless others who are an affront to life it self. And y'know what? I'll pick hellfire with the likes of Hitchens over your divine garden of twats any day.

Well, to be fair...Fable III is an awesome game.

Besides, these guys are young. They'll be locked up in a cubicle under flourescent lights with a mortgage and children before they know it. They can be excused a little personal time before beginning their journey of corporate enslavement unto death.