You suggest there's no market substitution, but it seems to me that there is a very lucrative market for highlights like these.
Maybe, but that there is a market for the highlights of games doesn't it any way make it substitute for the actual games that the NFL and XOS are pretending to protect. You're comparing apples and oranges.
What about game analysis, something that would absolutely, positively fall under Fair Use? Just because some would pay for such analysis, does that mean that is also a case of market substitution? Maybe in your dopey permission culture world it does, but back here in reality it doesn't.
I personally pay money to watch these highlights online.
You pay for highlights like this yet you have the nerve to call other people "dopey"?!?!?
My apologies for not mentioning this in the comments of the article in question titled "Predictable: The Fragmented Media Will Give Us All Our Post-Oregon-Shooting Outrage Blankets", but I do want you to know that is one of the most thought provoking and insightful articles I've ever read. Not just on TD, but anywhere.
Normally when I see your name attached to an article I expect (and you deliver in spades!) humor and snarky commentary, which didn't prepare me well for your profound analysis of mass shootings and our ingestion of them.
Just wanted to say "cheers" and keep up the great work!
Oooooh! That's soooooo clever! It's not like anyone else ever thought of taking a term and combining it with the word "porn" to illustrate an obsession with something. How DO you come up with such startlingly unique ideas?
I tune all such shizzle out.
Ah, the common refrain of faux intelligentsia who wish to appear more serious and profound than the rest of the world. I see that you are above all that.
Give us a break. Spare us from your self important drivel. Say something we haven't heard a thousand times before, something that isn't centered around YOU.
Whew! You went a loooooong way there only to illustrate that nobody was actually talking about regulation, only that you inferred that they were.
Meanwhile, there are STILL no commenters discussing regulation. Except you.
Try doing a Ctrl+F for 'regulat' and you'll see that the only matches are yours and mine where I'm telling you that regulation is NOT what we're talking about. Perhaps it's come up in a roundabout way in another thread (I'm starting to wonder if you understand what a thread is), but not in this one.
Maybe you should take your axe to an anti-gun forum and grind it there.
Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
Guns have no other use than as a weapon.
I'm not a hunter or even a gun supporter, but even I can see the stupid in that remark. Guns are simply tools and have wide range of uses beyond hurting other people. Hunting for food comes to mind. Protection while out in the wilderness is another.
Funny, then, that every example you give is an example of a gun being used as a weapon. Hunting? You're using the gun as a weapon to take the animal down. Self defense? You're using the gun as a weapon to protect yourself.
That is a whole lot of stupid in a remark.
And no, I am absolutely not opposed to gun ownership in any way. But it's really disingenuous to claim they have any other purpose than as a weapon. Hell, even when someone is shooting targets or skeet they are practicing using the gun as a weapon.
It's an absurd argument. Guns are weapons and nothing but weapons. They can be used responsibly, justifiably, and even honorably, but they are still only weapons.
First, it's a question of reported crime. How many people get their bike ripped off and just don't bother to file a police report because it takes too long, they don't have insurance, and they are upset as f-ck about it and don't want to spend more time on it?
Gee, you're back with even more complete and utter speculation (which happens to be TOTALLY wrong) and fear mongering. What is wrong with you? What do you have to gain by scaring people?
Nice way to play with the stats to make it look as though the boogeyman is already among us and ready to pounce. If you had a shred of intellectual honesty you wouldn't be trying to stoke people's fears and instead point out how crime has been falling for DECADES.
1) I would be jumpy too if a big percentage of the population was armed and had no problem mowing me down because I was trying to give them a speeding ticket (which is where a lot of cop shootings occur, traffic stops).
You can't just pull a statement like that out of your ass and expect people to believe you or be swayed by your argument. Where are the numbers to support it? I call shenanigans (in other words, I think you're full of shit).
2) Times are tough, no doubt about it.
Yea, crime sure has been spiraling out of control. It's hard to feel safe these days.
3) Teenagers will be teenagers - but now new and improved with gangsta mentality, guns, and a dumb attitude ...
Yea, yea, yea. This generation is SO much worse, right?
I'm sure you don't know this, but EVERY generation says that about the next generation. Even Aristotle (or was it Socrates? I'll look it up if you need me to) noticed way back then that the same thing had been going on forever.
Your "get off my lawn" is showing.
4) Society is often not defined by it's best, but by it's worst.
Really? How come cops aren't judged by the same yardstick? Why do bootlicking apologists like you always claim "it's just a few bad apples" (despite the daily FLOOD of evidence to the contrary)?