I don't care about Metalica. They can do whatever they want, and I wish the well - why not?
However, it is also worth pointing out that I would pay no money to Metallica even if I had access to thePirateBay. And in fact I have access to thePirateBay. And I don't pay money to Metallica. Using legal means to attempt to supress thePirateBay do not help Metallica. They do not help smaller artists, who are attempting to get around A&R types.
Who gets a paycheck if people can't promote themselves? Well, A&R types are not the only ones, but they're the ones that make a career out of it.
I don't dispute their right to make a check - just not on the back of other people. Being a rock star is a hard job - incredibly risky. I have no idea why is should support a much more comfy job.
If you wish to demonstrate the altenative, demonstrate where my not listenting to Metallica is a crime.You can't, because it isn't.
This is only one of the values of adhering to reality - you don't look absurd, and people don't make fun of you, thus reducing your future ability to argue with a straight face.
It is pretty clear from the context that "sexting themselves" refers to the act of sending nudie pictures which depict the sender to a second party.
It is possible to read the text in the way you do, but that way tends to obstruct conversation, or lead to becoming Scalia (except when he finds it inconvenient).
And, really, who would want to be a well paid, tenured absolute authority with a penchant for applying Catholic doctrine selectively in order to enforce retrograde notions of how people really live?
I read what you wrote, I'm aware that you are coming up just to the line between stating vaccinations are a net positive for humanity, and outright denying that they are.
I'm also aware of the free-rider notion that avoiding a miniscule risk just for me, and how that translates into problems for (as you ignored) collective action problems, herd immunity, and statistics.
As I said, feel free to be a loon, and attempt to cast doubt on established fact. I do, in fact, know whereof I speak, and there are, in fact, case studies to be analized here: you might look at what, for instance, disease control in Africa looks like. But by all means, please, go Galt and stand by your principles.
Hey, I've got a great idea!
I wonder if a number of the folks chasing these business models could band together and ask for a group discount on licensing the patents?
That's a really wierd argument.
Um, you have it completely upside down.
I don't care about Metalica. They can do whatever they want, and I wish the well - why not?
However, it is also worth pointing out that I would pay no money to Metallica even if I had access to thePirateBay. And in fact I have access to thePirateBay. And I don't pay money to Metallica. Using legal means to attempt to supress thePirateBay do not help Metallica. They do not help smaller artists, who are attempting to get around A&R types.
Who gets a paycheck if people can't promote themselves? Well, A&R types are not the only ones, but they're the ones that make a career out of it.
I don't dispute their right to make a check - just not on the back of other people. Being a rock star is a hard job - incredibly risky. I have no idea why is should support a much more comfy job.
If you wish to demonstrate the altenative, demonstrate where my not listenting to Metallica is a crime.You can't, because it isn't.
This is only one of the values of adhering to reality - you don't look absurd, and people don't make fun of you, thus reducing your future ability to argue with a straight face.
Not crazy,
Just pedantic.
It is pretty clear from the context that "sexting themselves" refers to the act of sending nudie pictures which depict the sender to a second party.
It is possible to read the text in the way you do, but that way tends to obstruct conversation, or lead to becoming Scalia (except when he finds it inconvenient).
And, really, who would want to be a well paid, tenured absolute authority with a penchant for applying Catholic doctrine selectively in order to enforce retrograde notions of how people really live?
Oh, wait.
Re:
Do you have a reference for that? It sounds like a wonderful talking-point. "Middle aged lawyer wants teen to close her eyes while showering."
Really, who is the pervert here?
OK.
I read what you wrote, I'm aware that you are coming up just to the line between stating vaccinations are a net positive for humanity, and outright denying that they are.
I'm also aware of the free-rider notion that avoiding a miniscule risk just for me, and how that translates into problems for (as you ignored) collective action problems, herd immunity, and statistics.
As I said, feel free to be a loon, and attempt to cast doubt on established fact. I do, in fact, know whereof I speak, and there are, in fact, case studies to be analized here: you might look at what, for instance, disease control in Africa looks like. But by all means, please, go Galt and stand by your principles.
Re:
I think that cost more than $.75. And apparently, you're unfamiliar with collective action problems, herd immunity, and statistics.
But that's OK. We even tolerate nutters like you. You just have to accept that one of the consequences of free speech is more speech.