The Real Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:47am: """... Again, if it were considered normal behavior, there'd be no need to convince (or in this case, brainwash) our children as it should be a given."""
So, do you honestly believe that kids are born with a natural instinct to reject homosexuality as unnatural? There are plenty of examples showing that that's not true. Kids don't give a fuck about someone being gay until they are taught to do so by their bigot parents!
I can't comment on particular schools and their "homosexual tolerance classes" because I have no information on them. But I do know that sometimes schools will have to try to undo damage caused by stupid parents.
The Real Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:26am: """Parents should teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and immoral."""
Parents should teach their children to think for themselves and to question dogma.
In my mind, the only actions that are immoral are those that lead to the suffering of concious creatures.
The only time being gay leads to suffering is when people like you causes people suffering for being gay.
"""... That doesn't translate to 'let's go out and bully gays.'"""
Of course it does! Do people bully gays because they were taught to respect other people? No, they do so because they were taught that only a chosen few are worthy of respect.
"""Homosexuals love to play the tolerance card, all the while looking for every opportunity to force their distorted world view upon others, especially children."""
Wow, really? The world view that you don't have anything what-so-fucking-ever to do with what other consenting adults do with each other? Distorted? Why is this important to you? How does this affect you? If two men or two women get married (or not), live together (or not), have lots of sex (or not), raise children together (or not), do tell me how that is any of your fucking business. Please, explain this to me, because from where I'm standing, this doesn't affect you.
And another thing...
"""But then again, this is all born out of the same movement that used to be affiliated with with NAMBLA."""
Seriously? Again, the keywords here are "consenting adults." Why the fuck would you bring up NAMBLA?
If I call you a "bigot" right now, please explain how I'm wrong.
Just because something is legal it doesn't make it right, and just because something is illegal it doesn't make it wrong.
A lot of things that used to be illegal are now legal, because we know better.
And "Copyright" is all about violating other people's rights, by restricting them. When you are granted Copyright on something, you are not granted any substantial rights you didn't already have before. You are granted a monopoly that restricts other people's rights. Which is why I think it should be called "Copyrestriction" instead.
A lot of laws are anchored in the opinion of the majority. Like murder, for instance. Most people generally agree that murder is bad, so we gladly stand behind a law that says you can't commit murder.
Most copyright laws, though, are generally not anchored in the will of the people.
I have no problem with thinking I am above laws that are thrust upon us without the support of the actual people being governed by those laws.
If the right to get paid is so much more important than actually getting paid, no problem. I'll happily go without. There is no shortage of legal free entertainment in the world. And there is a growing amount of artists happy to both treat me with respect and take my money.
Just watch your back when you're lifting all that cash you'll make from me not watching/listening/reading/experiencing your movie/song/book/whatever.
Oh, wait.... Yeah, explain that to me, would you, please? If I'm not consuming your content (paid or free) at all, how does that help you?
This is just another example of what a misnomer the word "copyright" is. It has absolutely nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with restrictions.
The Patent and Copyright systems are just two of the newest religions. They are defended with the same basic arguments that many followers of other religions use.
I'm going to make three statements below. Please list the substantial differences between them.
1: Patents are good, because....innovation!
2: Copyright is good, because....creativity!
3: God exists, because....morality!
average_joe: "So if some employee is violating company policy and doing something they shouldn't be doing, you think that company has no place defending its rights?"
So, what you're saying is that it's wrong to hold the entire company or organization liable for what a few employees are doing?
Sort of like how it's not really MegaUpload's responsibility if individual users used the service to infringe? Or how The Pirate Bay should not be held liable for what their users do? Or how it's not really Google's fault what their users post on YouTube? Etc, etc, etc....
1: Create something that people like.
2: Offer it as a product in a format that people want...
3: ...at a price they are willing to pay.
4: Make it convenient and easy to buy the product.
5: Profit
If you fail at any of the first four, how could you ever expect to do number five?
Shorter version: Is it called "intellectual property" or "intellectual artificial scarcity"? That should tell you which side won this debate.
Yes, yes.. Just like all these countries are perfect examples of democracies, because they have the word "democratic" in their names, right?
* People's Democratic Republic of Algeria
* Congo, Democratic Republic of the
* East Timor – Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
* Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
* Korea, North – Democratic People's Republic of Korea
* Laos – Lao People's Democratic Republic
* Nepal – Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal
* São Tomé and Príncipe – Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe
* Sri Lanka – Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
"That was the big news. But that's not the end of it. During LeakID's sudden burst of activity, all sorts of content was falsely claimed and removed by the overeager autobot."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Real Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:47am:
"""... Again, if it were considered normal behavior, there'd be no need to convince (or in this case, brainwash) our children as it should be a given."""
So, do you honestly believe that kids are born with a natural instinct to reject homosexuality as unnatural? There are plenty of examples showing that that's not true. Kids don't give a fuck about someone being gay until they are taught to do so by their bigot parents!
I can't comment on particular schools and their "homosexual tolerance classes" because I have no information on them. But I do know that sometimes schools will have to try to undo damage caused by stupid parents.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Real Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:26am:
"""Parents should teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and immoral."""
Parents should teach their children to think for themselves and to question dogma.
In my mind, the only actions that are immoral are those that lead to the suffering of concious creatures.
The only time being gay leads to suffering is when people like you causes people suffering for being gay.
"""... That doesn't translate to 'let's go out and bully gays.'"""
Of course it does! Do people bully gays because they were taught to respect other people? No, they do so because they were taught that only a chosen few are worthy of respect.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Real Michael, May 15th, 2013 @ 5:26am:
"""Christians are supposed to uphold their faith and have a strong sense of morals."""
And do you get your sense of morals from the bible? If so, let me ask you a few questions:
When did you last help stone someone to death?
How many slaves do you own?
Oh, I could go...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Real Michael, May 14th, 2013 @ 6:17am:
"""Homosexuals love to play the tolerance card, all the while looking for every opportunity to force their distorted world view upon others, especially children."""
Wow, really? The world view that you don't have anything what-so-fucking-ever to do with what other consenting adults do with each other? Distorted? Why is this important to you? How does this affect you? If two men or two women get married (or not), live together (or not), have lots of sex (or not), raise children together (or not), do tell me how that is any of your fucking business. Please, explain this to me, because from where I'm standing, this doesn't affect you.
And another thing...
"""But then again, this is all born out of the same movement that used to be affiliated with with NAMBLA."""
Seriously? Again, the keywords here are "consenting adults." Why the fuck would you bring up NAMBLA?
If I call you a "bigot" right now, please explain how I'm wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Real Michael, May 14th, 2013 @ 6:17am:
"""Do tell, what is 'normal' about a guy ramming his **** up another man's ass and why do you feel that everyone has to accept that behavior?"""
Why do you assume that all homosexual people like anal sex? Sticking your dick in various holes is not the only way to enjoy each other's company.
And no-one is forcing you to stick your dick in anyone's ass, right? Or taking one up your own ass?
Then why do you fucking care?!?
Seems to me that for someone who hates the thought of two guys getting it on, you spend an awful lot of time thinking about it...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because something is legal it doesn't make it right, and just because something is illegal it doesn't make it wrong.
A lot of things that used to be illegal are now legal, because we know better.
And "Copyright" is all about violating other people's rights, by restricting them. When you are granted Copyright on something, you are not granted any substantial rights you didn't already have before. You are granted a monopoly that restricts other people's rights. Which is why I think it should be called "Copyrestriction" instead.
Re: Re: Re:
"""So you put yourself above others. Got it. You fit right in here at TD. Home of the overly-entitled douchebags."""
Oh, I agree that there are overly-entitled douchebags that put themselves above all others, but I guess we will disagree on who those people are...
Re:
There is, however, a major difference here...
A lot of laws are anchored in the opinion of the majority. Like murder, for instance. Most people generally agree that murder is bad, so we gladly stand behind a law that says you can't commit murder.
Most copyright laws, though, are generally not anchored in the will of the people.
I have no problem with thinking I am above laws that are thrust upon us without the support of the actual people being governed by those laws.
Well...uh... That's completely different!
Evidence: It's only tampering when someone else is doing it.
Copyright: It's only infringement when someone else is doing it.
Bombings: It's only terrorism when someone else is doing it.
Re: Silly premise. First, DRM works unless circumvented.
"""Pay them what they ask, or go without."""
If the right to get paid is so much more important than actually getting paid, no problem. I'll happily go without. There is no shortage of legal free entertainment in the world. And there is a growing amount of artists happy to both treat me with respect and take my money.
Just watch your back when you're lifting all that cash you'll make from me not watching/listening/reading/experiencing your movie/song/book/whatever.
Oh, wait.... Yeah, explain that to me, would you, please? If I'm not consuming your content (paid or free) at all, how does that help you?
(untitled comment)
You have no chance to survive make your time!
Copyrestriction, not copyright
This is just another example of what a misnomer the word "copyright" is. It has absolutely nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with restrictions.
The Patent System is just another religion
The Patent and Copyright systems are just two of the newest religions. They are defended with the same basic arguments that many followers of other religions use.
I'm going to make three statements below. Please list the substantial differences between them.
1: Patents are good, because....innovation!
2: Copyright is good, because....creativity!
3: God exists, because....morality!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
average_joe:
"So if some employee is violating company policy and doing something they shouldn't be doing, you think that company has no place defending its rights?"
So, what you're saying is that it's wrong to hold the entire company or organization liable for what a few employees are doing?
Sort of like how it's not really MegaUpload's responsibility if individual users used the service to infringe? Or how The Pirate Bay should not be held liable for what their users do? Or how it's not really Google's fault what their users post on YouTube? Etc, etc, etc....
You mean like that?
(untitled comment)
"...companies that shortchange/ripoff artists, like Spotify..."
Please explain how Spotify is ripping off artists.
It's simple, really...
I've been saying it for years...
It's certainly not easy, but it is very simple:
1: Create something that people like.
2: Offer it as a product in a format that people want...
3: ...at a price they are willing to pay.
4: Make it convenient and easy to buy the product.
5: Profit
If you fail at any of the first four, how could you ever expect to do number five?
Simple, really.
What's in a name?
Shorter version: Is it called "intellectual property" or "intellectual artificial scarcity"? That should tell you which side won this debate.
Yes, yes.. Just like all these countries are perfect examples of democracies, because they have the word "democratic" in their names, right?
* People's Democratic Republic of Algeria
* Congo, Democratic Republic of the
* East Timor – Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
* Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
* Korea, North – Democratic People's Republic of Korea
* Laos – Lao People's Democratic Republic
* Nepal – Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal
* São Tomé and Príncipe – Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe
* Sri Lanka – Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
(untitled comment)
Neither 1984 or V for Vendetta were meant to be instruction manuals for government.
Remember....
...if voting could really change anything, it would be illegal.
Autobot?
"That was the big news. But that's not the end of it. During LeakID's sudden burst of activity, all sorts of content was falsely claimed and removed by the overeager autobot."
Meh... If anything, it's obviously a Decepticon.