youth is wasted on the young like learning and wisdom are wasted on the senile.


naivety reduces the legitimacy of young opinions, and lack of sex appeal does similar to those of the old.


so which is more of a waste? to know little but be able to do allot, or to know allot but be able to do little?

“Your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don’t want to comply with.”

i thought the judge would have been reasonable and pointed that at companies which both would provide content over the air, and on cable. it makes no sense in the reverse.

the biggest problem with what i read in that is that it the concept of copies is flawed and rejectable.

the broadcasters who send the signal over the air have waved/forfiet copyright, to allow the reproduction of the content on numberless devices. and they waved it due to profit from advertising. creating more avenues with identical properties dilating the market reach and diversity of that one signal they intentionally sent out, isn’t a semantic game.

one group forfeit copyright due to advertising, and another picked up on the forfeit copyright and made it so that advertising and content would go to more customers. and that happens after the signal is sent out to an uncontrollable number viewers- the public. and the biggest issue with the viewing public in this context is that it isn’t even limited to one nation and so it is loses even more protection from copywrite infringement. for the providing party isn’t trying to maintain exclusivity and novelty of the work.

it is a company suing someone for making copies of an advertisement. imagine if geico sued tv station 6 for providing unsponsored ads to the public. so geico bought and payed for one ad, but the station showed the ad twice, and then geico sued the station for the redistribution of copywriten material. it is the same thing, the content surrounding the ads are a carrier for the ads. and the advertisers are paying a fraction of what is asked by the company to kill their cash cow; at that fidelity level. cause once the signal is sent out to deliver it to an indefinite number of people, the only thing left of the content is nosolgia. it is the same reason they don’t do it until it is out of theaters.

there only might be wrong doing, if the ads are removed by the repurposing agent. which would mean there would eb a semantic method of getting around

yesterday i was writing a response to someone who was confused by some person’s conjecture regarding some random topic. and in my response, i stumbled on something new.


hippocrisy is litterally doing other than what you prescribe others, but it also has a connotation of simply not doing what you prescribe. and at a meta level i notice that sometimes saying you are going to do something precludes it’s eventual realization. that is, people say they want something, and by saying they want something there is a consequence (or series of consequence) which result in the ‘counter intuitive’ result of the exact opposite state of expressed desire existing. that is, saying you want some things can make it so you can’t actually achieve those things and actually set your progress towards the ‘desired’ (literally professed) goal backwards.

it isn’t the failure of earnest bargaining where you say what you actually want rather than exaggerate so the middle ground you settle on was what you originally wanted.

simply instead of your actions precluding your verse, it is your verse which precludes your actions. and which in the circumstance of actual accomplishment is actually worse. you can recommend not smoking to someone who doesn’t smoke as much as you do, and still have their best interests at heart. but you can’t as earnestly express an ideal/preference which is against the action itself. simply, if you say you want an icecream, but saying you want the icecream actually causes you not to get the icecream- did you really want it? does the inappropriate and inviable application of social technology towards a professed goal, not cause the ‘personal value’ of the goal to the one saying it has whatever worthy attributes it may have, to come into question? do you really want x if proclaiming you want it actually goes against your obtaining x?

it is a strange type of setting yourself up for failure. let me know if there is another more appropriate word for the concept. is it ‘silly’?

short feminism thoughts

so i recently watched a video about a feminist saying that a man should gallantly defend her premise as a person, so she doesn’t have to demand respect for herself.

i was thinking about the entitlement attitude, and i noticed that it is a desire for men to express one specific female behaviour which we don’t do anymore, that pack mentality. i recall some instances where women act as a group to fend off predation and coddle “the vulnerable”. which simply seems to be falling out of favor and into dissonance within our individualistic culture.

honor and allegiance are expression of foolishness in our corporate world. and they are very expensive attributes to cultivate in a friend, rather than an entitlement. in a very prosex culture where ‘cheating’ is unsurprising and acceptable this degree of significance is made unlikely because it is often more of a liability than a boon.

similarly ethnic, and religious affiliation is often experienced as too expensive for the product and service received.

just found out men go to clubs because due to the age requirements it acts as a method to screen out underage girls. so the guy doesn’t commit accidental rape. i guess that does actually make teh behavior in clubs a part of culture rather than just alcohol culture.


so i could go to a club despite not liking alchohol. :/

the pain and reason causing misogyny

this post wont vindicate misogyny. nor will it cast women as bad. it just explores some concepts related to the practice.

misogyny like all hate is an expression of pain, and frustration. it rationalizes and inters the experiances in best manner possible accepting the data. and the answer is that the other party was guilty. the other party knew the rules and obligations, and broke the trust. that party broke the trust either with consideration or choice or instinct. so to rationalize the circumstance, the blame is externalized to the other person.


at this point, it is just that one person who is the asshole. so they part ways, and the asshole gets written off. but then it happens again, this time it is harder to discard as a random occurence. still the person accumulating negative perception of the group doesn’t blame their preferences for the choice of company, but the company itself. these perceptions accumulate, and eventually clot, as a heart attack of prejudice which caricatures the person for the group they belong to; the mind is made up, and they are bad.


i just read an article about a girl who started doing porn while in a relationship with a guy. she never told the guy, someone else did. this type of experience seems like it could be sufficient pain to cause a hatred of the other gender. in another thread there was revenge porn site, where ex boyfriends posted porn of their ex girlfriends. and i can see that as similarly causing misandry.

people will find out their trust was violated, and i believe it would make it harder for the person to trust a member of the offending group later on.


i’m seriously considering being more outgoing but distrustful, with more significant perception of others as ‘less human’. people seem a traitorous bunch, and the best way to not get hurt is just to not trust and be blatantly dishonest. idk though i think it would sadden me to adopt that kind of mask.