http://www.wired.com/2014/05/absurd-creature-horsehair-worm/

Interesting article.

Despite the title, I think a lot of these were pretty awesome.

For the religious right, life begins at conception, and there's nothing you can say to convince them that a fetus does not deserve the same rights as a person.

A better argument IMO, is described in the Violinist Scenario. Basically, you wake up one day to find that a famous violinist is now attached to your body without your consent. The violinist has organ failure, and must depend on your body for the next 9 months to recover. It doesn't matter that the violinist is a real person and has full legal rights, you still have the right to refuse him and let him die.

Paid for by Citizens Super PAC, which is funded by Republicans / Conservatives. Not saying Trump doesn't suck, but damn this attack ad is dirty. This is going to look really bad for them when Trump wins the nomination.

He's a comedian. They're known to exaggerate and make stuff up for entertainment.

Except Videosift is not just for Americans.

When you look at the majority opinion of the western world and especially the subset that speaks english, it is majority liberal by your standards.

America is remarkably ass backwards in comparison, so much so that your Liberal candidates appear moderate, and your Conservatives appear batshit insane.

You have to go to the middle east to a Muslim theocracy to find people more conservative than right wing America.

So don't feel that you're somehow under-represented in the developed world.

I look at ultrasounds too. While I understand the sentiment of wanting to show that it's not just a lump of tissue, and it's certainly not a lie, it is also completely unnecessary. The government forcing you to do this is a violation of your rights.

Also, withdrawal of support is not the same as murdering. Even if you believe a fetus is alive and deserves the same protections as any human being, a woman should still have the rights for an abortion. The ethical arguments is thus:

If in some hypothetical situation, an adult human such as yourself, became completely dependent on my body to survive, your right to life does not trump my rights to my body. You cannot force yourself to leech off of my body for the next 9 months. I have the right to refuse you and let you die. It may not be a nice thing to do, and should be avoided whenever possible, but it is my right.

It is strange to me when conservatives who support small government and individual rights (including those who support laws like stand your ground, which lets you kill another human being), does not understand this concept.

Also promoting abstinence has been proven to be ineffective compared to education about birth control.

Such an overhyped and disappointing movie. Would have been as bad as the prequels if it wasn't for the nostalgia.

Isn't that what they did though? As long as you have a set demographic reacting to videos, couldn't it be argued that you're infringing on their trademark?

Trademarks are much more broad and powerful protection than copyright. They protect your brand and/or logos and slogans. They also protect against things “confusingly similar,” so it’s possible you could be sued for naming your video “Kids have emotions.”

Source:
http://ryanmorrisonlaw.com/attorneys-react-the-fine-bros-react-trademark/

So please explain to me why this lawyer is wrong. And you might want to tone it down a little - you're sounding on par with the worst that reddit has to offer, and disproving the notion that the videosift community is more mature and capable of having a civil conversation.

If you'll take the worst youtube troll comments, then it's just as bad as the most retarded things on reddit.

Yeah I watched it. Did you watch it? Do you even understand why people are upset?

The point is the Fine brothers built their empire reacting to other people's content, but are now preventing other people from using their own derivative content. It shows just how much "good will" they have about people building a "community" with this trademark of theirs.

I don't know enough about law to know who's right, but here is a perspective from an actual attorney:

http://ryanmorrisonlaw.com/attorneys-react-the-fine-bros-react-trademark/

And judging from all the reports of the Fine bros bullying other youtubers with cease and desists, I don't think the situation is quite as harmless as you paint it.

They did go around the internet shutting down other videos.
Here's a video from one of many youtubers who've they've blocked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfc_HE8dJ5k

Also, regarding the trademark vs copywrite issue, here's an attorney's perspective.

http://ryanmorrisonlaw.com/attorneys-react-the-fine-bros-react-trademark/

In the end, you may be right. But calling people retards and writing in all caps like some youtube troll doesn't help your case.

Screw the Fine Brothers and don't give them any more views.

In case anyone cares, they are trying to own the rights to every kind of reaction video: http://nymag.com/following/2016/01/youtubers-at-war-over-those-react-videos.html

That's not unexpected, because they took the best parts of A New Hope and rehashed it for this movie. What worked for ANH back in the day still works now with a new coat of paint.

It was disappointing movie for me because after you strip away the nostalgia, there wasn't much left. It's still a good movie, but I would not put it in my top 10 list, even though the original trilogy was one of my favorite movies of all time.