Perhaps this is on me for not presenting the argument clearly, but please read this again:
"I mean, look, it sounds like Lars is doing everyone a favor here, but this is all equal parts insulting and business-dumb. I'd wager that most gamers that are diving into Steam's Early Access beta games probably have a firm understanding that these games are unfinished and quite possibly buggy. That was certainly the case when I got in early on Starbound, for instance. But that didn't stop me from gifting the game to my brother, because I'm a thinking human person who can determine for whom gifting the game would be appropriate. I certainly didn't need the game developer to tell me to simply not buy the game for anyone for Christmas."
The point isn't that this guy is dumb or wrong for being honest about the state of the game. The point is that there is no need to be insulting to fans by pretending like they are unable to determine for themselves for whom the game would be an appropriate gift. When I hear someone say, "Don't buy my product as a gift.", all I think is "Well fuck you very much, maybe I just won't buy it at all."
If you can't see the problem with the hardline approach, well....*Shrugs*
"Is telling someone you will kill their mother torture?"
Once? Probably not. As part of a larger ongoing theater you've set up to traumatize a victim? Again, yes, and obviously so....
"A submarine during WWII sank a Japanese troop transport ship, leaving many Japanese soldiers in the water. The CO surfaced the sub and then machine gunned the troops. In today's world, that would be a war crime."
I love these types of arguments, because they presuppose that society and humanity doesn't progress and that all standards old are valid standards today. Was machine-gunning Japanese sailors who posed no threat wrong? OF FUCKING COURSE IT WAS. WHY ARE WE EVEN HAVING THIS DISCUSSION!?!?!?!?
"Maybe in your world that is how you work. But then again , I wouldnt invest in a business that after how many years of existence is dependent on Flattr."
I'll let you, Karl and Mike hammer out the NN stuff, since all three of you are far more qualified to discuss the topic than I, the guy who writes the post chiefly designed to make fun of people for a laugh...
...but dude, while I had and guess I still have a ton of respect for your business acumen, that quote above is apropos of nothing, isn't accurate with regards to Techdirt, and simply makes me glad that this forum isn't your silly reality TV show, though you seem to be behaving as though you think it is....
"I don't believe there is or should be a difference however evidence shows that the killing was in self defense."
People REALLY need to stop saying this. The entire point of the post is that our entire system is built on the idea that no evidence is valid evidence until it is put through an adversarial trial. You MIGHT mean to say that there isn't enough evidence to proceed to trial, but that isn't the same thing. What was released by the prosecutor was a naked evidence dump that has no context, not contests against it, and has gone through no adversarial process.
As far as the law is concerned, it's meaningless in terms of assigning guilt or innocence to anyone at all....
"Perhaps Michael Brown's family should have instilled in Michael that stealing a carton of cigarettes and then assaulting the store owner when the owner tried to stop him from leaving with the unpaid merchandise and then walking down the middle of a street, placing the lives of motorists at risk and refusing to listen to the commands of a police officer, then Michael Brown would not have lost his life."
Your comment suggests that these crimes are punishable by death at the hands of a policeman in the street. In which case you're a fucking idiot.
"Numerous witnesses (white and black) report that Michael Brown was charging toward the officer when he was shot 150 feet away from the vehicle."
This ignores the ENTIRE POST YOU'RE COMMENTING UPON. The process by which grand juries work almost all the time is commonly altered when a policeman is the one facing potential charges. What you're stating is evidence that should ONLY be presented at trial, not in a grand jury setting. Grand jury settings are a one-sided account by the prosecutor SOLELY of the reasons why an indictment SHOULD be handed down, not why one should NOT. If you'd read the post, you'd know this.
"With that kind of evidence from numerous eyewitnesses (and ballistics evidence consistent with that account), there is really no reason to go to trial. If you don't want to get shot, don't attack cops physically."
Interesting thought. So is it any person who charges at a cop that should be shot at 12 different times while the shooter gets not even a trial to determine the veracity of his claims or of the worthiness of the testimony and evidence? Or is it only people who weight 280+ lbs? Or only 280+ lbs black men under a certain age? Or maybe they have to have committed a crime recently?
Or might it JUST BE POSSIBLE that we expect police officers to be able to deal with criminals in a manner other than double-digit bullet-expenditures aimed at the head?
Re: School Shootings In The US Are NOT Incredibly Rare
That Wikipedia page is the EXACT statistics I've been debunking in three straight articles now, and you went ahead and cited them anyway.
As far as NZ not having any recorded school shooting deaths:
A. I don't believe that zero statistic and B. Ignoring the obvious population and internal topology of the two countries is great if you want to boast about New Zealand but otherwise incredibly pointless...
"FUCK YOU, you bit-brained brainwashed asswipe... you are probably 1/3rd to 1/2 my age, but if you show your smarmy puss around me and say shit like that, YOU WILL BE KNOCKED OUT, wormtongued, human-shaped pile of shit that you are..."
Well, hey, at least you're being levelheaded, logical, and intelligent about, right? Threatening violence on someone for a simple one-sentence observational opinion is sure to win you sell-swords for your side of this fight you're making up in your own head, so keep on gettin' on, soldier!
"so, tell me, does my wife (a single mom for much of her adult life) hate wymns too ?"
No idea. Never heard you mother's words, so I wouldn't be so simple as to pretend to answer this exceptionally silly question.
"so, tell me, do my sisters (both working women who have worked longer and harder than any DOZEN useless pontificators like YOU) hate wymns too ?"
Whereas you'll feel free to just make up how long I've worked, how old I am, and what kind of work ethic I have as compared strictly to the female members of your family, because that's apparently important. I guess this is on me for arguing with a simpleton, but what can I say, I'm a sucker....
"so, tell me, does my bossy horselady neighbor hate wymn too ? because she thinks ALL you femtards are useless mouth-breathers and she has barn stalls to muck rather than contemplate theoretical prejudice of no consequence..."
Gamergate, everyone. Remember: it's all about journalistic ethics. It has nothing to do with women or feminism (eye-roll)....
"i've posted that email address enough that you should be able to find it if you wanted to, big boy... (you will not, JUST LIKE all the rest of the cowardly fucktards who do not back up their stupid shit...)"
And what am I supposed to do with this email address, exactly? Why would I communicate with you there when I can communicate with you right here? Are you...having a stroke or something?
"yet you only have enough testicular fortitude to throw out a nasty, personal comment in your private sandbox, instead of a real debate of some sort ? ? ?"
You thought THAT was nasty? Oh man, I'd be happy to have any kind of debate you'd like, but I fear your skin must be quite thin given the statement above....
"fuck you sideways with a pineapple, you dickless pinhead..."
Let's get the debate started here, then. What is it about sticking things up my ass and my being "dickless" that you think it's a great insult? What is it about people who don't have dicks that you find to be less than yourself? And why is it that you don't have anything against women, except all of your insults have to do with fucking people and the lack of male genitalia? I mean this question honestly, so please try to formulate your response with a complete lack of foam in your mouth...