NYKBocker wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:i don't download any copyrighted intellectual property. there are just sites that happen to stream certain sections of movies, they are hosted on legitimate video hosting sites. no downloading or distributing or recording ever takes place. does this change it at all?

no, officer, I didn't actually rape that woman, I just watched it happen

orangeblobman wrote:and let's say i never planned to see movie A, that means my money was never going to go into supporting movie A. but a site comes to my attention where, sometimes, low quality videos of movie A are streamed, but never downloaded (or distributed by me). did i really hurt the studio by misdirecting money that never existed, or i was never going to spend, in the first place?

Let's say I never planned on buying an Aston Martin, so my money was never going to the dealership...

Like Bonn said, you're rationalizing your behavior. Maybe that makes your behavior acceptable to you. But that doesn't change the facts, bro

you can't liken it to rape and aston martins are valuable because they're so cool. movies for the most part make you dumb and lazy, so. what can i say? fine, i will stop, no more.

i mean, my stand on posing nude has nothing to do with streaming movies, this is not common sense no matter what language it's wrapped in. and it's like, i'm being demonized while the truly evil people...the one's recording the stuff, leaking the stuff, distributing the stuff, facilitating the stuff, it's like i'm in the same boat as them; no way.

The reason you are being "demonized" as you put it, is because like someone else has posted in thread...you are shoving your beliefs into everyone else. If you just said, I believe this and that...then it will be ok, but since you state things as a matter of fact then you will be called out and questioned.

Like I said before, everyone should have their own opinion and as long as no one is getting hurt I am ok with that.

it's really not my fault that some people are so sensitive and easy to 'insult'. honestly, that's your problem. i read and take in lots of material on this forum and other places, but i have the fortitude of mind to discern what is good and what is bad for me. i didn't offend anyone, i stated it bluntly with no sugar coating. i don't know what to tell you.

regardless, you're saying that i'm being demonized because of the way i stated my posts, but the demonizing originated in my nudy/movie stream position. so what gives?

orangeblobman wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:i don't download any copyrighted intellectual property. there are just sites that happen to stream certain sections of movies, they are hosted on legitimate video hosting sites. no downloading or distributing or recording ever takes place. does this change it at all?

no, officer, I didn't actually rape that woman, I just watched it happen

orangeblobman wrote:and let's say i never planned to see movie A, that means my money was never going to go into supporting movie A. but a site comes to my attention where, sometimes, low quality videos of movie A are streamed, but never downloaded (or distributed by me). did i really hurt the studio by misdirecting money that never existed, or i was never going to spend, in the first place?

Let's say I never planned on buying an Aston Martin, so my money was never going to the dealership...

Like Bonn said, you're rationalizing your behavior. Maybe that makes your behavior acceptable to you. But that doesn't change the facts, bro

you can't liken it to rape and aston martins are valuable because they're so cool. movies for the most part make you dumb and lazy, so. what can i say? fine, i will stop, no more.

i mean, my stand on posing nude has nothing to do with streaming movies, this is not common sense no matter what language it's wrapped in. and it's like, i'm being demonized while the truly evil people...the one's recording the stuff, leaking the stuff, distributing the stuff, facilitating the stuff, it's like i'm in the same boat as them; no way.

The reason you are being "demonized" as you put it, is because like someone else has posted in thread...you are shoving your beliefs into everyone else. If you just said, I believe this and that...then it will be ok, but since you state things as a matter of fact then you will be called out and questioned.

Like I said before, everyone should have their own opinion and as long as no one is getting hurt I am ok with that.

it's really not my fault that some people are so sensitive and easy to 'insult'. honestly, that's your problem. i read and take in lots of material on this forum and other places, but i have the fortitude of mind to discern what is good and what is bad for me. i didn't offend anyone, i stated it bluntly with no sugar coating. i don't know what to tell you.

regardless, you're saying that i'm being demonized because of the way i stated my posts, but the demonizing originated in my nudy/movie stream position. so what gives?

I did not say you were being demonized. You did. I welcome your points of view. This is a message board after all. You are getting called out because you state your beliefs as fact and expect everyone to follow suit. That's cool. Just telling you that if you do that, other people/posters will call you out.

Bonn1997 wrote:Oblob, Why do you think it is that we have worse moral outcomes than European countries that are less uptight about the human body, especially those countries that allow topless beaches? They all have fewer people without health insurance dying, less homelessness, and less murder and violent crime. Wouldn't your reasoning predict the exact opposite of what's happened? Wouldn't your theory predict that allowing nude beaches and being less uptight about nudity in general would cause these countries to have some kind of clear, observable damage--rather than actual improvement?

...especially those countries that allow topless beaches?

can't assume that we have worse moral outcomes just because europeans are 'less uptight'.

They all have fewer people without health insurance dying, less homelessness, and less murder and violent crime.

they also live in, for the most part, culturally homogeneous nations where the common bond is based on more than what you will eat or buy this weekend.

Wouldn't your theory predict that allowing nude beaches and being less uptight about nudity in general would cause these countries to have some kind of clear, observable damage--rather than actual improvement?

no, it wouldn't, because you also have to factor in the nature and context of the nudity and the other things i mentioned above.

so, again, i believe it IS morally wrong. it does contribute, in the long run, to a lower quality of life for our population. how much it contributes, i don't know. and, because i don't live in europe, i cannot gauge the effect that these pornographic influences have had on their society over the last, whatever years.

and, on the nature of the original question, i am aware that it is virtually unanswerable because of the great variance between the different cultures and world views that constitute our nation.

Bonn1997 wrote:

can't assume that we have worse moral outcomes just because europeans are 'less uptight'.

I don't know how you can ignore the morality of murder or poverty. I can't understand how low murder or low poverty could just be called "less uptight."

they also live in, for the most part, culturally homogeneous nations where the common bond is based on more than what you will eat or buy this weekend.

I've spent a decent amount of time in Europe and I've never heard anything like this before

i don't know what you're trying to say.

maybe i wasn't clear, sorry. i'm sayin' that in america, our least common denominator is whether or not we saw 'biggest loser' or what we bought on sale over the weekend. over there, in europe, their common denominator is a shared history and culture that goes back thousands of years. this leaves a void in our american lives because we share mostly superficial concerns.

Bonn1997 wrote:no, clothing goes against nature (even though it's become a social custom). Abandoning social rules that aren't rooted in nature can be quite liberating. (Not specifically with clothing but more on a life outlook.)

what?? clothing goes against nature?? liberating...of course it's liberating. so is not doing your homework or studying for tests in school and not having a care in the world and slacking off and smoking pot. that's liberating. will it lead you to anything good? of course not.

get outta town!

AND CLOTHING DOES NOT go against nature. without clothing, humans would have not survived. where do you get this stuff?

orangeblobman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:no, clothing goes against nature (even though it's become a social custom). Abandoning social rules that aren't rooted in nature can be quite liberating. (Not specifically with clothing but more on a life outlook.)

what?? clothing goes against nature?? liberating...of course it's liberating. so is not doing your homework or studying for tests in school and not having a care in the world and slacking off and smoking pot. that's liberating. will it lead you to anything good? of course not.

get outta town!

AND CLOTHING DOES NOT go against nature. without clothing, humans would have not survived. where do you get this stuff?

Actually, when it's hot outside, the natural thing to do would be to remove clothing. As a guy, when I'm working on my yard and it's 95 degrees with 95% humidity here in Alabama, I take off my shirt but *purely due to socially created norms* must leave my boxers and shorts on. Females have to stay even more uncomfortable in the heat by keeping a top on. Keeping more clothing on makes you sweat more and lose more calories. In our ancestral history when food shortages were common, this would be counterproductive to survival and reproduction.

As to the other point: clearly liberation is good only if you're not harming yourself or others--no one would argue it's good 100% of the time.