Posts made by eobox91103

As the discussion above shows, this is a complex topic. I'll add a few of my own thoughts here.

As for underage material, as @bi4smooth points out, you can't simply look at a "model" and determine their age. While a pre-pubescent 10 year old would not be mistaken for an adult, someone who's 15 can look 20, and vice versa. It would be nice to be able to rely on a producer's certification of age-compliance, but this is not infallible. Some get it wrong, and some purposely misrepresent the facts.

Then, there's the issue of amateur material--anybody with a smartphone can make and post a video. There's no way to determine the age of the performers, and thus some sites will not host (or share) material that isn't from a commercial producer. There is amateur material on GR.ru, and it's possible that there are some underage performers. The moderators can't look at everything that's uploaded.

Part of amateur material is voyeur content--filmed in a locker room, shower, or over the divider of a toilet stall without the consent of the subject. These subjects could pursue both the person taking the photos and anyone possessing that material for an invasion of privacy--the usual norm being that photos or videos taken where a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" constitute such invasion. This gets further complicated given that there's no way to verify the age of a person being recorded in such circumstances. I have seen some toilet stall videos where I am less than convinced that the subject was 18 or over.

And finally, we need to distinguish age of consent from age of majority: In Canada, and most of the United States, it is legal to engage in sexual activity with someone 16 or 17 years old--but possessing a photo of that person's genitalia would be a crime.

One conclusion from all this is that each of us needs to use caution about what material we download and/or keep on our computer. Ultimately, it doesn't matter that you believe it's "legal" or can make an argument for that being the case, but rather it's what the legal system would think if you come under scrutiny. There have been cases where a person's computer or download records were seized for one reason or another, and when an investigator had reason to believe that there was banned material present, criminal charges were made. These might be later dismissed or acquitted, but only after considerable inconvenience and/or embarrassment. I don't say this to frighten people, but only to recommend that all of us be careful in what we do. Unless one is really into child (i.e., pre-pubescent) material, there's an abundance of clearly legal content available on this site that will be more than satisfying.

@dilemmax Take a look at "Auto Movie Thumbnailer," at https://funk.eu/amt/. The user interface is a bit clunky, but it will do a bunch of thumbnail sheets at once. I have it installed on a Windows 10 machine, and it passed all of my computer's multiple virus checks. I don't think there's a Mac version, but I haven't looked closely.

@raphjd said in Once again, Biden can't stop lying:

@eobox91103

So you admit you are a total hypocrite.

How can you say that? I think you would benefit from a course in remedial English comprehension.

@iaimtoplease said in Why do torrents that have already been taken down still affect my ratio?:

@bi4smooth Their topic and message are two different things. A torrent taken down, I read that as removed, would error in your client as "unregistered" in which case you should absolutely stop seeding if you want credit for any data that you're uploading.

I'm not sure I would say "absolutely stop seeding." It's true that one won't get credit for anything seeded after a torrent is deleted from the site, but one can still share data with a leecher that was connected prior to the deletion. This upload from my client doesn't hurt/cost me anything, and it benefits the leecher--which is probably a Good Thing.

If I have a deleted torrent in my client and no leechers are connected to it, then no new ones will be and I can delete the torrent, saving any downloaded material that might have come through.

@raphjd said in Once again, Biden can't stop lying:

@eobox91103
You clowns bringing up Trump in a thread about Biden.

In a discussion of lying, it is hard not to mention your Dear Leader.

@raphjd said in Once again, Biden can't stop lying:

@eobox91103

Umm, you are being a hypocrite again.

How so?

@bi4smooth said in Once again, Biden can't stop lying:

When you FIRST claim that your inauguration was "the largest crowd in history" it's just being wrong. When you're shown photographic evidence, backed up by testimony of your own followers - that you were wrong, but you continue to make that claim, you cross over from just being wrong to lying.

I appreciate how clearly you have stated this. I'm willing to give the Orange Toddler a pass on his initial statement of "largest crowd in history," as even the meager turnout at his inauguration had to look yooge (in Trumpist dialect) from his vantage point. But after being confronted with the facts, his persistence in making the claim was indeed an attempt to deceive. (This assumes that he did indeed see photographs comparing his crowd to previous inaugurations. It's possible that his inner circle prevented those facts from coming before him...which itself would indicate a serious problem.)

Under Trump, the "stimulus" was reasonable - inflationary, but inflation was historically low, and the economy had just taken a gut-punch. The 2nd Trump "stimulus" was purely political, and totally an inflationary event - causing people to not only spend unwisely, but also to expect to routinely collect money from the Gov't for free!.

One writer likened the stimulus payments to swatting a fly on a window using a sledge hammer: You might accomplish what you wanted to do, but with a lot of collateral damage. We must also remember that Trump wanted his name to appear on the stimulus checks, even though doing so would delay those checks. I also recall one report that he was furious that the majority of the payments would be made by direct deposit, and thus no paper with his name on it would go to those recipients.

@bi4smooth said in Universal Healthcare according to liberals:

• Requiring people to take a vaccine PERIOD (as-in, there is no way to decide NOT to take it) is un-American and amoral to my Libertarian beliefs. If you ACCEPT that you cannot work for the Federal Gov't (or a contractor), or go certain places, or do certain things because of your choice, that's fine - BUT IT IS STILL YOUR CHOICE!

Indeed so--and people often have more choice than they think: For example, security screening at the airport is optional, not mandatory. A person can refuse to be screened. If the person refuses, s/he won't be allowed to go past the checkpoint to the gates and get on a plane--but the option of refusing to be screened does exist.

I think covid vaccination should be optional...but if a person refuses to be vaccinated, then s/he should not be permitted to be in contact with other people, whether in the home or in public.That might sound severe, but it is the price of the freedom to not be vaccinated.

@raphjd said in Co-founder of Christian TV network that railed against vaccines dies of Covid-19:

@eobox91103

You are a Whataboutism nazi and hypocrite, everyone here knows it.

AH, that is why you, claim, you did it. I still notice that you never, ever mention when someone on your side does it to me because you are so fair and balanced in your comments.

Thank you for again proving my point--that you have nothing substantive to say, and childishly resort to insults.

You are a typical liberal.

Actually, I'm not. But I don't think you would be able to understand this. Perhaps you can illuminate us as to what you mean by "liberal."

@raphjd said in Co-founder of Christian TV network that railed against vaccines dies of Covid-19:

You are a "whataboutism" nazi and hypocrite.

This demonstrates my point that when you have no rational argument to make, you resort to insults. Do you have any idea how asinine and childish this is?

So, let's have a look at your own post. You called me a fucking liar, illiterate and ignorant.

I thought giving you a taste of your own medicine might be helpful. But perhaps you know these things already.

@raphjd said in Co-founder of Christian TV network that railed against vaccines dies of Covid-19:

@eobox91103

AH, the "whataboutism" nazi.

Many people on here notice that your responses to other people are almost always an ad hominem, attacking the person rather than addressing issues. While this might give you some childish satisfaction, it shows the reader that you have surrendered on the topic and are left with nothing else than hurling your feces at people. This is not worthwhile discussion

If you are going to slag off a person for not getting a vaccine and then repeat boosters and not wear masks, you have to accept it when people point out that your side dies too. .

I have no idea what this incoherent rambling means. I do know that it's very likely nonsense.

@raphjd said in Co-founder of Christian TV network that railed against vaccines dies of Covid-19:

Even the Mayo Clinic website said that if you get the vaccine, you won't get covid.

No, it doesn't

If you search for "mayo clinic covid vaccine," the first page that comes up is https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/why-get-vaccinated. This page says, "A COVID-19 vaccine might ... Prevent you from getting COVID-19 or from becoming seriously ill or dying of COVID-19"

Notice the word "might" in there. I think this wording is quite clear.

So, by your own definitions, this would make you a fucking liar. (I would prefer to say that it suggests that you are illiterate and/or ignorant).

@raphjd said in Co-founder of Christian TV network that railed against vaccines dies of Covid-19:

@bi4smooth

But fully vaccinated people have died too.

But what about....?

Yes, some fully vaxed people do get very ill and die--but the undeniable fact is that people who are vaxed are much less likely to do so.

Public health and safety issues should be seen as risk reduction, not risk elimination. People who follow traffic signals might still get into a crash at a junction, but they're less likely to. People who exercise might still get heart disease, but they're less likely to. The fact that preventive measures don't always work doesn't mean they aren't effective and should be taken. This might be a difficult concept for some people to understand.

Who are YOU to say that he would have survived?

@bi4smooth did not say that. But it is a fact that people who are vaccinated are less likely to become very ill and die.

Marcus Lamb, 64, whose Daystar network reaches an estimated 2 billion viewers worldwide, had pushed alternative therapies. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies

This score just in: Science 1; Dumbass 0.

@leothar There is indeed a pussy preventer:

From the search page, click on your user name in the upper right. Select "profile" from the drop-down list. When that page comes up, tick the boxes called "turn off straight (or bisexual) categories." Then click "submit changes" at the bottom of the page. (This last step is important.)

I have these boxes ticked in my profile, and and my view is almost vagina-free. Occasionally a user posts straight content but doesn't tag it as such, so it will show up. When this happens, users often post messages reminding the uploader of the rules.

I hope this works for you.

@illustrious said in Is FOX even "news" anymore?:

@raphjd LOL. Literally not a single piece of evidence.

Did you read the Mueller report?

The first part of the investigation was not about Donald Trump (although his worldview thinks everything is about him). It was a "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election." That interference did take place "in sweeping and systematic fashion," according the report. (The report is available at https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download. It's 448 pages long, far exceeding a Trumper's attention span. The introduction and executive summary is only 10 pages, and one hopes that people could read that much.)

While it has been clearly established that the Internet Research Agency of Russia interfered with the 2016 election, it is not surprising that there was no provable conspiracy between Donald Trump and the Russian actors. Putin and his gang are as smart as they are evil: They did not want an erratic and naive person involved in a carefully designed and executed project.

After the Mueller report was released, Trump and his sycophants (none of whom read the report) screamed loudly that they had been "totally exonerated." That is factually false. The investigation was conducted according to a rigorous standard of proof, which found sufficient evidence to establish that there was Russian interference in the election.

While there was also much evidence of interaction between Trump campaign staff and advisers and Russian actors, there wasn't a provable link that Trump himself was involved in the conspiracy. This is hardly "total exoneration."

@hubrys said in Is FOX even "news" anymore?:

It's strange that ordinary Joes think that Tucker Carlson really understands them

A while back some people sued Tucker Carlson and Fox News saying that Carlson's on-air rants were a breach of an implied contract between a journalist and his audience. Fox News responded by saying that Carlson was not a journalist, but rather an entertainer.

If that's the case, Carlson knows how to work his room of uncritical Trumpers: Feed them baseless conspiracy theories reaffirming their unhinged world view that they can absorb within their 30-second attention span.

In the real world, complex problems don't have simplistic solutions, but in the Fox world, facts are inconvenient and ignored.

@massafera There is another LGBT torrent site (something.org...I won't mention the name) that is not publicly accessible, and has lots of torrents from sources that send takedowns to gt.ru. As a member of that site I have no problem using it. Whatever they're doing should be done here.

@bi4smooth said in Karen in FL files criminal charges because school library didn't censor a LGBTQ book.:

20 years ago (eek, maybe closer to 30?) I was visiting Indianapolis and was taken to a "private club" (I had to pay $5 at the door to get a membership!

There was a similar law in North Carolina some years ago that prohibited bars from serving a "predominantly homosexual clientele" (or something like that). So, gay bars had to be "private clubs." I recall visiting a friend there and having a similar $5 membership fee. I also had to sign in...I signed as "Jesse Helms," a senator from that state with rabidly homophobic views.

@bi4smooth said in Karen in FL files criminal charges because school library didn't censor a LGBTQ book.:

I don't think it's legal to drive naked in this state, much less attack people with your car while naked...

The Florida statues don't address specifically address driving while naked (would that be a DWN?), but it is a first degree misdemeanor to be "naked in public in a vulgar or indecent manner." This gives rise (!) to three questions:

1. Is being in one's car on a public road considered being "in public?"
2. Does being naked in itself inherently imply a "vulgar or indecent manner?"
3. What is the definition of "being naked?" Florida law is silent on this.

I'm not going to research the case law here, although there are probably some amusing precedents. I wouldn't, myself, want to drive while naked: I always wear the seat belt, and the lower portion of such would be in position to saw off my gentleman's bits. This would be uncomfortable was well as unsafe.

(As an aside, the definition of "naked" is not as straightforward as one might think. Some time back I was visiting a friend of mine in Washington, DC, and he took me to a gay bar that had male "dancers." They appeared to be completely naked, but on closer inspection (!), I noticed that they were wearing socks--and I was told that this was to quash any accusation that they were naked.)