I’m pretty much the same. Cats are terrible creatures and I would never intentionally own one. But I’m not going to hold it against my partner’s two cats that they are cats, so they get scritches and nap times with me.
How is it not stale? The inaccurate and dishonest framing of a situation from this meme isn’t going to convince anyone of anything.
Nobody gets charged with theft for downloading movies and music. They get hit with copyright infringement. Doesn’t matter if you buy physical media that you owned or digital media that you licensed, either way you never purchased the copyright.
You don’t need special digital scam money to do this. You can just go buy the thing directly from the creator/the creator’s agent. If the creator wanted to go through the trouble of self-publishing, they’d have just done that.
Were you under the impression that Amazon was going to assign you the copyright to the song or movie that you purchased? No? Then you understood that you were buying a license and you’re just playing pretend about the confusion.
Maybe you can point out where I said what you claimed I said.
I guess I’ll just reply with your own comment:
It isn’t about what the charges are it is about what people think. If we redefined the crime of murder as “foo” and charged people the same way it isn’t like murder went away.
Whatever value copyright was supposed to give us it has failed to do so. Abolish it.
How is someone going to be compensated for their creative work if anyone can come along and just make copies of it? Copyright prevents people from just making copies of other people’s work. You want to do away with copyright, thus removing that protection and severely hindering the ability of anyone to make money from creative works.
You’re making a distinction without a difference. Nobody has any fucking clue who their “genetic match” will be nor does anyone have any fucking clue who else is using 23andMe. Sharing that information with other 23andMe users is not meaningfully different than just sharing it with the world at large.
You have to understand that conservative media right now barely features anything that Trump actually has said or done. It’s all made up bullshit and mythology about him and how great his is. My own mother consumes this media all the time and has told me that Trump looks healthier and stronger than ever. That’s what these people are being fed.
You’re also missing something very important. A lot of the things these people see as “their problems” have been implanted into their heads by shitheads on talk radio, TV, social media, YouTube, etc for the benefit of the wealthy. If you’re too busy worrying about trans people and illegal immigrants, you’re not going to pay much attention to the rich fucks paying you a pittance and hoovering up the planet’s resources for themselves.
No, that’s not how it works. Merely showing someone a gun is not “brandishing”. A very simple example demonstrates how silly your claim is. Gun stores exist and involve the employee handling and showing people many guns. No one would call that “brandishing”.
Did you see the video of the interaction? He said something along the lines of “I want you to be able to defend yourself”, then a student asks “Do you mean by carrying a gun?” and he says, “Yes, I’m carrying right now.” If you did watch that video and came away saying it must have been a threat, you’re not have a good faith discussion.
I’m entirely failing to see the “wrong” in demonstrating that he himself carries a weapon when asked about carrying a weapon. There are no doubt plenty of reasons to dislike this guy, but this example is little more than people like you trying really, really hard to make something out of nothing.
That’s not a particularly relevant example. If you and I were having a discussion about one’s right to self-defense, and I ask you “like by carrying a knife”, and you say “yes, in fact I’m carrying a knife right now” and you show me, I’m not going to feel threatened. (Which is actually exactly what happened in this instance.)
I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point. Like your link says, simply showing someone a weapon is not brandishing. There has to be an intent to intimidate. The video of this interaction makes it plainly obvious that there was no intention on the part of this politician to intimidate anyone.
edit
All that said, your link isn’t relevant to this situation anyway. The definition of brandishing is mentioned specifically in the context of someone who possesses a weapon “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime”. (see 18 USC 924(c)(1) and (c)(4)). This guy was not in the middle of committing a crime of violence or drug trafficking, thus the brandishing definition does not apply.
care to explain how calling attention to being armed, isn’t on some level intended to shock or scare school kids?
Yes, ffs, just go watch the video. I shouldn’t even have to explain this. He said something about self-defense, some kid goes “like carrying a gun”? He says “yes, in fact I’m carrying right now” and briefly revealed the gun on his side. A reasonable person would interpret that as him demonstrating that he does the thing that he himself advocates for. Nobody felt threatened by that. This group of kids didn’t gasp at seeing the gun and run away. They didn’t even take a step back. They stood there and kept arguing with him.
Simply opening his jacket was “using” in that sense. “I’m armed right now!! [SEE?]” there was absolutely zero reason, as far as legitimate policy arguments go, that flashing that pistol bolstered… and a reasonable belief, by members of this group, that he was indeed threatening them
lol, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. I already explained the reason why he showed it and covered why it’s obvious that no one standing there felt threatened.
Will this guy get off because “i didn’t mean it that way?” Absolutely. because he’s rich(ish), white, and in a conservative stronghold that likes this sort bullshit.
He’ll get off because he didn’t do anything that anyone could even make a plausible argument is illegal. (Sorry, but your arguments here are all implausible at best.)
I assume to emphasize the point about having a weapon to defend oneself. You don’t have to agree with that point, but you don’t get to automatically jump to it being some kind of threat.
Why? What does it do to further his argument? What does he gain? Consider the reasons why someone would choose to unconceal their firearm. It shouldn’t be a fashion piece to just show off.
For any number of reasons, the most obvious and likely of which is that he was simply emphasizing his point about carrying a weapon for self-defense. The least likely and most ridiculous reason, the one you seem stuck on, is that he was threatening a group of kids.
Why? What does it do to further his argument? What does he gain?
Why don’t you spend some time applying some of that critical thinking to why he would threaten a group of kids?
Gov. Ron DeSantis said Thursday he is sending National and Florida State Guard troops to Texas to help that state put up razor wire fences on the southern border, a move in apparent defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the contentious immigration issue....
The right move is for the GOP clowns in Congress to actually agree to do something about it. That said, the idea that nothing is being does is just plain idiotic. There are around 20,000 border patrol agents. What exactly is it you think they spend their time doing?
Cat can change anybody (lemm.ee)
Don't let the corporations tell you otherwise (lemmy.ohaa.xyz)
23andMe is low on cash and its stock is worth pennies. The CEO wants another chance | CNN Business (www.cnn.com)
Most Republicans aren’t aware of Trump’s various legal issues (www.washingtonpost.com)
Non-paywall link...
Video shows Indiana lawmaker showing holstered gun to students who were advocating for gun control (abcnews.go.com)
DeSantis orders Florida National, State Guard members to Texas border (www.orlandosentinel.com)
Gov. Ron DeSantis said Thursday he is sending National and Florida State Guard troops to Texas to help that state put up razor wire fences on the southern border, a move in apparent defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the contentious immigration issue....