MovieChat Forums > Freeion > Replies
Freeion's Replies
Wouldn't America be better off if they did secede? We don't need them anyways.
I find it hilarious that in 2021, people still believe the myth of centralized misinformation. I'm sure those twelve have large numbers of followers, but deplatforming them will only result in a dozen others popping up and most likely harden the group's resolve.
It's understandable that it's easier to believe that people are just brainwashed into thinking a certain way than admit people naturally tend to seek out opinions that match their own. Just that it isn't true, there will always be people who think differently than you do, you might not understand why they think that way but disagreement is human.
That depends on what you consider "actual conversation," I particularly felt IMDb didn't have trolling problem so much as a tolerance to people with different opinions problem, being that people were intolerant to anyone saying something contrary to what they thought. Perhaps it's that people have gotten more annoyed by minor issues and always feel the need to respond which only further annoys them that the other person then responds back.
It's like arguing that you don't want to be arguing, the problem lies with both parties for continuing the actual conversation.
So you saw a blimp you've never seen before... or were high / drunk.
So you saw a blimp?
There is nothing grey about stealing, it is illegal, no one other than criminals claim otherwise. Stealing with the intent to redistribute just provides a more lucrative option for a lawsuit because it pays out more than the 20 or so dollars you lost because of one lost sale. You personally sharing doesn't pay out enough either since your income is still much too small to afford a big payout.
The lawyers to sue someone costs more than what they'd get back. Hence why they go after universities, so the universities go after the students and then the students stop or get kicked out of uni. Get the ISPs to feel pressure, get YouTube to feel pressure... big money = big payout.
No, "notice-to-notice" is how everyone handles small scale copyright infringement, not talking about only Canada. That you're incapable of understanding this is your problem, they'll send threatening cease and desist letters but they're not going to waste money to do anything more.
Obviously, if you weren't a criminal, you'd understand that the way companies catch people via torrent is to just observe the peers who are downloading... no one needs to upload to use a torrent. All methods of file-sharing are covered, you claiming that Canada only cares if you upload goes right against what media corporations are doing by sending notices to people who download movies.
Canadian law has changed, I get that you weren't around in 2004 but the case you keep referencing wouldn't even allow the "notice-to-notice" style antics you see now. Criminals like you are hanging onto a mythical past that wasn't even there to justify your criminal activities.
You don't sue people for illegal downloading, you send them letters threatening legal action... or send their university letters threatening legal action, or otherwise ruin their lives as much as you can with letters threatening legal action. As I explained, it costs way too much to sue an individual.
It isn't 2004 anymore, Canada updated their laws because criminals who refuse to pay their fair share were using outdated arguments like "I can use a photocopier in a library to steal a book, so why can't I steal a movie." Your case isn't applicable in modern times.
Royalties are in the contract, if construction workers wanted royalties to be included in their work then they just need to setup the contract for the house to include them. Heck, when buying a new house with an HOA attached, you have to agree to join the HOA or you can't buy the house. This is basic contract law, and it isn't confusing at all.
Yes it is, you're the one who is too cheap to pay for a book so you steal it by illegally photocopying it, and the one who is too cheap to pay for a movie so you steal it by downloading it. There is no double standard, you're just too cheap to pay for the hard work of other people.
Finding edge cases online doesn't change that the problem is the person who is too cheap to pay for what legally belongs to someone else.
Doing further research, it seems like your case isn't even applicable as Canada updated their laws to make piracy illegal and actually, at one point, had a system that allowed copyright holders to send notices to the criminals who stole things online via the Internet Provider.
Why are you too cheap to pay a few dollars for a movie?
How about T3 where John Conner turns into a junkie :D
Yeah, T1 set the universe rules which were promptly violated with each successive sequel. T2 practically claimed Judgement Day happened because John sent a terminator back in time to protect his mother back in T1. (Though, it's been a long time but didn't the guy from the future come back to inseminate Mrs. Conner?
These are all bad movies, which is what makes them so good. Gratuitous gore and violence with a weak story that barely makes any sense. T1 laughs at its own ridiculousness yet T2 takes itself a little more seriously so you get more of that ohh feeling when Arnold kills himself.
Doesn't change that it is illegal in America and the EU. There is no personal use clause to copyright law outside of edge cases you find on a "christian scientist" website.
I'm not certain why you're going off on this direction. I am only pointing out that pre-covid, there was much a harsher stance against the anti-vaxxer movement than we currently are using now. <b> Antivaxxers put the vaccinated in danger. </b> Before covid this was universally accepted, now we seem to think vaccines have a 100% efficacy rate and no one who is vaccinated can get sick.
If you're capable of transporting the disease, you're capable of catching it. The worry shouldn't be about spreading to the unvaccinated, but the very real chance that we are spreading to the vaccinated as this vaccine has been politically hyped up as being the thing that will bring us back to normal when it actually isn't. Just because you've been vaccinated doesn't make you any less responsible than the anti-vaxxers.
We're already losing our herd immunity to measles and polio, adopting these soft stances against the anti-vaxxers where they only put themselves at risk isn't helping. The anti-vaxxers put everyone at risk and there is no legitimate reason why they should be allowed to endanger the nation for their own personal beliefs.
Emphasis again, just because you have been vaccinated doesn't mean you are protected.
This has been part of the argument for mandatory vaccinations for years before COVID. Anti-vaxxers love arguing "get your vaccines if you're so worried" but the problem is that they are the ones spreading it. We have long been concerned about losing herd immunity to diseases that have long been thought dead like polio because of how many people refuse to get their vaccines. Remember, a vaccine works with the immune system to defeat a virus, if you are immunocompromosed or elderly your immune system might not be strong enough to fight it off. We need everyone vaccinated or risk having long gone diseases resurface.
Remember though, testing requires going out of your way to get tested over vague symptoms that apply to most all illnesses. It's not foolish to resist getting tested unless you actually are sick, and some parts of the nation look worse because they stopped letting anyone get tested without a doctor's approval. This is why you need a designed experiment, so that all these variables are taken into account and you can analyze the true cause.
You know, the problem with these stats is that they're not part of a designed experiment. Naturally anyone who is hospitalized over COVID-19 will test positive for it, but if the majority of people who get the wimpy virus don't get tested once they get the sniffles, it makes it appear that more people are being hospitalized because people are only being tested if they have a severe case.
I should also note that vaccination rates need to be up in the 99% rate for it to provide herd immunity benefits. Remember, not everyone who gets the vaccine will develop the immunity and since this virus starts itself off as a common cold most people won't quarantine until they get to a severe case.
• Most animals are capable of logic, reason, and abstract thinking. Slime mold is capable of remembering where traps are in a maze and actually solving the maze.
• Written language, of course not, but to argue that no spoken language exists because you can't understand it is puerile.
• Tool use is common in the animal kingdom, some animals rely on tools for their very survival.
It seems more so that you're reaching for straws if you're insisting that the personalities of social animals are limited to "fight or flight" despite the science showing that isn't true. Social animals have hierarchies, they have laws, they even declare war on other tribes.
Humans are just bags of organic chemicals, there is nothing truly special about us. What you call a complex personality is simply a result of upbringing and evolution. Chemicals don't have a personality, and that is all we are, all any and all life is, but every decision made is one on "instinct" meaning that chemicals reacted in a particular manner and so you act. Chemicals cannot decide to move differently, humans operate purely on instinct since we are just chemical reactions.
Photocopying a book for personal use is illegal... it's just that no one makes a fuss over it. Though, in a similar vein, libraries that have attempted to create digital copies of their books have faced massive legal backlash from publishers.
"Personal use" isn't an get out of jail free card, it's just that the publishers don't have the resources to go after small fries and force you to pay the $20 or so that they lost (usually requiring a few thousand dollars of attorneys to collect that $20.)
Humans are <i>animals</i> there is absolutely nothing special about humans to separate us from other animals. We are all products of evolution, no magic sky fairy created us separate from other animals, and other animals have emotions too.
Now if you want to argue that social animals, like humans, display emotions purely on instinct for survival purposes, I will agree with you there. The feeling of love exists purely to protect ones' offspring (otherwise we'd kill them all due to how annoying they are) and to find and seek out mates to procreate with. Survival dictates that the male and the female should tolerate each other's existence after copulation (the fun part) so that the male might protect the female and her offspring. Children grow an attachment to their caretakers and have evolved to go through a rebellious phase so they separate from the caretakers and seek out their own mates to further spread the human population.
Bulldogs aren't innately violent, they're extremely social which means it's easier to train a bulldog to be violent through extreme beatings and neglect. Similarly, you can train a child to be extremely violent by the same antics.
Absolutely just as heartbreaking as when a child of your own dies... but different pet owners different perspectives. I still recall a woman on the plane that gave the stewardess a cute line, saying that there are plenty of babies screaming and crying on the plane so if people are complaining about one cat meowing they should put the babies in the hold too. The stewardess claimed the babies were humans and the cat was an animal, but the woman replied "she is more human than you."
Pet parents pour just as much love and energy into their pets as they would their own children.