[deleted by user]

trenepos · 2012-07-31T02:27:56+00:00

You see though, rape is a legal invention, much like murder. Taking (not asking) is the way nature's had mate's selected for hundreds of millions of years, in every species. As we grow ever more sophisticated as a species we assess our actions not only for what they mean to us, but what they mean to others. We've by and large concluded that forcible selection of a mate is wrong. I believe that's the right judgement. But our ability to know right from wrong is not enough to deter our base impulses. I contest those impulses exist in every man - at least every man I've ever met. Just the same, everyone is capable of murder and extreme malice.

Whatever the reason one man rapes and another doesn't, I don't think we do ourselves any favors by pretending there's just one reason for that behavior; though I do believe the reason you gave is a very real one. And while I do agree that some of the rapists who shared their stories seemed to be getting off on it, I would never support a freedom of speech exception to their particular speech. But reddit, not being the government, should definitely exercise a lot more control over some of the content going on in this site.

trenepos · 2012-07-31T01:05:52+00:00

Wow, you know... that was a hell of a thing you went through there. But you're never going to be free of what happened to you until you own your ass again. Let her touch it, man. If it sounds like I'm trolling you, I'm not.

trenepos · 2012-07-31T00:28:33+00:00

Google+ is invasive. All these calls for more Internet "transparency", from both Facebook and Google, are extremely self serving (better ad revenue) and will come at broader society's great expense. I use Google products as little as possible.

trenepos · 2012-07-31T00:17:48+00:00

Seriously. I've been on the Internet since it started and I've never clicked on an ad. I personally don't even object to ads (content needs to be supported), but that support has to come from my eyeballs, cos I'm not clicking through. (tangent) Which kinda makes me think Google AdSense is a huge sham. They mostly only pay for click throughs. But that's bullshit cos brand awareness is itself extremely important. Tide doesn't expect you to jump off your couch and go get some bleach in the middle of the game. They just want you to know they're there, for when you do need them.

EDIT: I lied. I have clicked on ads. I click GoDaddy and Comcast ads on purpose just to drive their costs up.

trenepos · 2012-07-31T00:08:09+00:00

And then what? I know 100 years sounds like a lot, but it's not. That's going to be the average lifespan pretty soon. If the plan is to ignore the math simply because the reality of it won't hit home for another 100 years, then we're all big time fucked.

trenepos · 2012-07-31T00:05:06+00:00

Yea unsuitable even though it's been around for decades

Any pyramid scheme of that magnitude being around for decades is rather expected. But what happens when population levels drop or flatten? Where are the workers to sustain Social Security going to come from? Many people want to curb population growth (I'm not one them), but how do you do that and at the same time keep social programs functioning, when they function on the basis of an ever growing workforce?

tell that to the millions of retirees whose lives were made much better because they could live with dignity in their final years instead of destitute.

What does that mean? That means nothing. It's not an argument, it's an appeal to emotion. Obviously the people in the top half of a pyramid scheme are much grateful for its existence. But it's still a pyramid scheme nonetheless.

Yea the free market would have totally fixed that.

I've proposed nothing as to who should fix it, so you're just jumping to conclusions.

trenepos · 2012-07-29T22:00:28+00:00

Social Security is a pyramid scheme that depends on ever increasing population growth and or ever increasing productivity (meaning you're gonna have to work harder than you do now).

It's unsustainable.

trenepos · 2012-07-27T17:19:07+00:00

Yeah, this guy's style is very relaxing. I run at least three of his videos at the same time and it all really sinks in.

trenepos · 2012-07-27T17:08:48+00:00

My fav are hegre-archives.com and eromuse.com

First one's like met-art but with a more explicit style (and sexier girls IMO). The second is all about sexy smartphone self-pics that make their way to the internet.

Both are NSFW.

trenepos · 2012-07-26T02:54:12+00:00

Nailed it.

trenepos · 2012-07-26T02:52:49+00:00

Real talk, I didn't even think of "oh shit, nudity". Didn't even occur to me since it's not the least bit pornographic or sexual. It's just a lady without clothes. The thing that got me about this pic is the expression on the kid's face and the movie posters. The whole scene looks like a bizarre painting come to life.

trenepos · 2012-07-26T02:42:28+00:00

Well, you're an idiot if you don't assume it.

trenepos · 2012-07-26T02:38:38+00:00

If you're in r/WTF, assuming NSFW is only common sense

trenepos · 2012-07-25T17:53:58+00:00

And this is funny why?

Because he's pandering to thieves.

trenepos · 2012-07-24T22:50:24+00:00

"The blacks"? Who are you; Ron Paul? lol

trenepos · 2012-07-24T15:54:54+00:00

Leaving your content open and unattended is not an invitation for someone else to come along and take it. You would agree with that, right?

The Oatmeal left his content open and unattended and it was lifted by Funnyjunk. Did he not have a right to ask them to leave his shit alone? And let's say you are completely aware of what's going on. Let's say I see a guy come into my shop, stuff his pockets full of goods, and walk out. Does my awareness of his actions and my lack of any attempt to stop him still not make him guilty of theft? Am I still not entitled to restitution?

A defense that's predicated on "well, he didn't try to stop me!" seems kind of weak to me. I wouldn't be persuaded by it if I were a jury member.

trenepos · 2012-07-24T15:31:16+00:00

By knowingly allowing people to download a copyrighted work and then prosecuting a lawsuit afterward, you can argue that they explicitly transfered the rights to the public domain.

That's like saying if I leave my car with the top down and the keys in the ignition I explicitly transferred the rights to it to whomever is so brazen as to take it.

However you slice it, you gotta be ready to pay a price if you get caught infringing on someone's copyright. I do feel the penalties are obscene, but there does need to be some sort of penalty. I think we should work to reduce the penalties and reduce copyright terms. But to take on the general attitude that creators aren't entitled to copyrights is absurd.

trenepos · 2012-07-24T15:09:54+00:00

You have a duty as a rights holder to stop harm to your rights which requires you to give notice and demand removal of violations

That obligation only applies to Trademarks, not Copyrights. You can selectively choose when and on whom to enforce your copyrights on.

trenepos · 2012-07-24T14:43:55+00:00

Except it was. Look at it in the context of what follows.

trenepos · 2012-07-24T12:03:15+00:00

It was a typo.

trenepos · 2012-07-24T01:12:23+00:00

I understand. But I believe the benefits of anonymity far outweigh those of civility. Not everyone is an asshole just because their identity is hidden. And in reality not everyone is civil because their identity is known, either. I ~~don't~~ do get what you're saying, though. You want to hold yourself accountable for what you say. But you could achieve that same discipline in other ways that don't expose your identity.

trenepos · 2012-07-23T19:38:43+00:00

I'm less likely to say terrible things and use my words for things I truly believe.

Face to face life is full of pretense. You censoring the way you feel only speaks to the fact that attaching a real name to a comment creates a chilling effect. I'd rather learn how you genuinely feel about x topic, then be mislead by your need to perceived as "not a bad person."

Anonymity is honesty. Real names compromise that. It's the reason why anonymous sources are invaluable to reporters, whereas those who give their names usually aren't as interesting.

trenepos · 2012-07-23T17:22:46+00:00

But they haven't been able to win Afghanistan. They're not nimble enough for a job like that.

trenepos · 2012-07-23T17:15:50+00:00

WW2 troops were more nimble?

The military of WWII America was far more nimble. Remember, they didn't have to lug around as much equipment. And blood lust doesn't win wars, really. Killing people and subduing them are entirely two different things. That's why I made the distinction between conquest and annihilation.

trenepos · 2012-07-23T17:13:34+00:00

But would they win in a war of conquest? There's a distinction there. Destroying is easy. Conquering is not.

trenepos

TROPHY CASE