Not a defense, but aren't a lot of the steam games at least runnable without the front end?

Not as much as GOG obviously, but some ?

Pointing out potential hypocrisy isn't homophobic, that you think it is, says a lot more about you than them.

So porn involves copyright, a legally distinct category of activity.

Which i did in fact already know, i didn't realise you were referencing something that you hadn't mentioned in your reply.

I'll assume you don't actually have a basis for claiming that prostitution involves copyright then.

I get that it sounds like splitting hairs, but we are commenting on something with a legal context, the legal distinctions are relevant.

Taking a step back: this is c/declineintocensorship not c/piracy. The fact that these are copyrighted means these pictures had even more protections than if not, legally speaking. Even ignoring the sensitive nature of these pictures, it is reasonable for the owner of content (the actresses and or producers) to enforce their copyright protections on these.

Indeed, as seems to be the case here.

Sorry who are you?

My username is right above my reply.

Why does suddenly everyone on the internet want to get a word in edge-wise as soon as I say something even mildly feminist?

Is your question why are people replying to your statement in a public discourse on a public forum?

I’m not sure I’m equipped to explain that to you if you can’t figure that out from context.

Further, a lot of the replies aren't actually disagreeing with your stance, they are disagreeing with the poor arguments you are using to try and justify your stance.

Pick arguments that aren't full of holes and you'll probably get less pushback.

Literally none of my other comments get this much hate, but when I suggest that a person doesn’t have an innate right to someone’s nudes tons of random people from all over the internet have to show up in my inbox with their take. Ffs guys it’s a bad look

Literally none of what i said referenced any of that, you made a claim that was logically suspect, i made a comment regarding that claim, none of what i said referenced literally any other point you have made.

I suspect that if you were commenting on something with equal levels of visibility with the same logically sketchy arguments you'd get just as much pushback.

More controversial topics get more replies, that's how the internet works.

edit:ordering

Danish law ruled on a case with it's own context and arguments, that you have an opinion after the fact in no way confers the outcome of that ruling to your very specific interpretation of the law/events.

Unless you were either party in that actual ruling?

Is there copyright involved in prostitution?

You have to be doing it on purpose at this point, nobody accidentally misses the context with that amount of pinpoint accuracy.

You're even including partial sentences and specifically leaving out the part that gives the context.

OK so I'll do this one line by line and then you're on your own.

There is no change of context. Comment thread OP stated that vegetarianism is a luxury of modern times, something patently counterfactual.

The whole line was

Veganism is a luxury of modern times and certain social economic circles.

As for "patently counterfactual" that's a strong phrase for zero supporting arguments.

She specifically mentions supply chain issues such as the local availability of produce and economic concerns over the cost of meat vs. vegetables.

Yes, as a supporting argument that the current conditions mean that it's not universally economically viable to subsist on vegetables.

We have been talking about supply, demand, and economic feasibility this whole time.

It was mentioned yes, but in the context of current conditions.

I'll simplify for you.

As things currently are it is not always economically viable to subsist on vegetables alone.

There was no argument that it isn't possible for the world to get to a point where this is possible, just that it's not the current world.

Do you know what the word is for an item that is possible to obtain with an expenditure of wealth, while a less costly viable alternative exists?

There is no world in which a person’s daily intake of protein is cheaper to produce in meat than in grains and legumes. That it is cheaper to purchase is what OP is commenting on and I am decrying as unsustainable.

No, they describe many reasons aside from just the purchase price, if you haven't seen them i suggest you back and re-read the post, it's like 3 small paragraphs.

In case you are still struggling. I'll bullet point them for you.

• Purchase price
• Availability
• Quality
• Accessibility
• Opportunity/Prep Time Cost

Overall your replies imply a lack of ability to empathize with another persons circumstances and not a small amount of (let them eat cake) entitlement.

it's great that you are in a financial situation, physical location and with enough free time to make vegetarianism viable.

Declaring that it's not possible to be in a situation worse than the one you are in, especially when realistic potential reasons for the differences are offered, is tone-deaf and frankly disgusting.

I'm done with this, if you can't figure it out from the above that's a you problem, and i suppose anyone who has to deal with you on a regular basis.

If you want to change conversations then indicate that that is what's happening , because the post you are replying to clearly stated the context in which that statement was made.

If you want to reply to that statement in an entirely different context and then don't mention that that is happening you're going to get confusion.

Vegetarianism is a luxury?

Yes it is, sometimes, based on the criteria in the post you are replying to.

They even give examples of why this is and point out not everyone has the same circumstances you , but you still somehow read it as your own personal position being the only correct one.

To be clear, that's vegetarianism, not vegetables.

Access and "cost effectiveness to nutrition ratios" are skewed towards meat in some places, especially when looked at from a socio-economic point of view.

Per calorie, meat or "meat" can be cheaper, especially when you factor in time/effort taken for purchase, storage, prep and cooking.

That's almost certainly because of the focus on meat production in some countries and you could argue that it shouldn't be that way, but that's a different conversation.

Firstly, i said it "sounds like that", not "this is what they meant", very different things.

Secondly, what exactly is it you think happens when some of these false positives occur ?

I suspect the downvotes are because it sounds like this :

It's less US centric than it is catered to US sensibilities of narrative, but it's a valid criticism.

The reason i mentioned it is because it deals with the exact situation outlined in the original post.