would understand that "DeEzNuTs" is not the copyright holder for Avatar
Why? What if it's a bogus DMCA takedown request?
the laws are easy to follow.
Are they? Not if you're constantly getting DMCA takedown requests. Then you'll have to rely on some sort of automated system that will more than likely result in non-infringing material getting removed. That or give power to copyright holders. Either way, the consequences will likely be the same.
You're correct, and there's big difference between RapidShare and the likes of Dropbox. MegaUpload, RapidShare etc is clearly profiting from copyrighted content.
No. They're profiting from advertisements and premium accounts. They provide a service. It has nothing to do with copyright infringement. But I guess websites that have users who may or may not be doing illegal things shouldn't be allowed to have advertisements or make money from the website at all because some of their users may be doing illegal things.
You are not entitled to access stuff just because you would not have purchased it otherwise.
He's not entitled? Only because the laws in certain countries right now say otherwise. There is no objective reason for this other than "the law says so" that I see.
Just because it is digital does not mean it is any different than walking into a store and shoplifting.
Just like how theft is no different than murder...
I disagree. If you take something from a store, that something is gone. The store loses something that it actually had. If you make a copy (in this case, a potentially illegal copy), no one loses anything. Except maybe potential profit, of course. But I wouldn't call the loss of potential gain "theft." It happens to me all the time, but I would never claim that someone stole from me.
And I don't even know what the point of those analogies was. Actual, tangible harm was inflicted in both of those situations.
If you would have never paid for your downloads, then you obviously perceived no value in them.
I don't think that makes any sense.
It could have been that he didn't have money to give them It could have been that he didn't think they were worth paying for (if a pirated copy did not exist, he wouldn't pay for it). It could have been any number of things. As far as I know, you can't read minds.
The thing is, I suspect you're lying. Not to me, and not purposely, but lying nonetheless: to yourself, and out of philosophical/ideological blindness.
I can play that game, too. The thing is, I suspect you're lying. Not to me, and not purposely, but lying nonetheless: to yourself, and out of philosophical/ideological blindness.
So what if you had never had those experiences?
Then I'd be a different person and I'd be none the wiser. What works would and would not have been created without copyright is likely impossible to determine (unless you can peer into alternate realities, of course). But, again, I don't really care.
Do you begin to see what you would lose without some kind of protection for intellectual property?
No. If intellectual property never existed, then I'd never have had those things to begin with. Therefore, I couldn't "lose" them, and I wouldn't even know about them (assuming they didn't exist, of course).
The better solution to that problem is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater
I disagree that that's the "better" solution.
In any case, the maximum amount of years of copyright I would agree to (if copyright should exist at all) would be 15. Although I think copyright should be abolished entirely (artists would, like everyone else, have to find ways to make money without being granted the ability to enforce artificial scarcity), that doesn't mean that I'm not open to agree to things that are slightly better than what we have now.
Anyway, my point is that taking extreme positions is a helluva lot easier to do on issues that do not affect your personal ability to make a living.
Making choices that will personally benefit you is also presumably a lot easier. In the end, though, it doesn't matter how 'easy' it was to come to the decision, or how 'biased' you are. That doesn't mean that you're wrong.
By what right are you entitled to do anything at all? Depends on where you think rights come from, and whether you agree with them or not. The government? The magical rights fairy? To a pirate who probably disagrees with such laws, their lack of 'right' (according to the law) probably doesn't matter to them.
but don't feed me the standard line of how it's not actually stealing. Theft of services is still theft.
This is how I see it: a copyrighted work was downloaded without permission, and a loss of potential profit may or may not have happened. I don't see any theft there. I lose potential opportunities all the time, but I would never claim that they're theft. The pirate didn't steal the artist's time, either. That time and effort was already lost, and it was the artist's sole decision to use it up. The pirate didn't have anything to do with that.
Likewise, I suggest not claiming (if that's what you did) that your opinion about the subject is the be-all and end-all of arguments.
You can try _actually_ being their friend.. it's pretty nifty.
Not if you don't care for them to begin with. Or don't want to.
Guess that depends on the person, their interests, and their definition of "getting by".
Indeed. My point was that it all depends on the person.
but no one wants to promote them
Oh? And why would that be? Is it because they're bad at their jobs? Is it because they're slightly different? A combination of the two? Something else entirely?
You don't see them
I don't?
(it's a choice between Bill who was just at lunch talking about his new deck.. and Jim... you know.. never talks to anyone, headphones on all day.. wonder who's out the door?).
Which one is better at the job? That's all that matters to me. I don't care what irrelevant things Bill was just talking about.
because social skills imo _are_ part of the job now.
Talking about a job and talking about irrelevant things are quite different. The former is likely simple even for people who don't like doing the latter (probably most of them, anyway).
You don't have coders working in silos, you have teams working together..
Being locked in a building isn't the only way to develop social skills. People that don't want to socialize simply won't do it. They'll either ignore everyone or just be forced into an uncomfortable environment (if they're shy or something such as that).
If they don't want to, I don't see the point of making them. I think the 'skill' is highly overrated. My experience is that you don't need to constantly talk to people or pretend to be their friend to get by.
People pirate because they don't want to pay for shit that they feel entitled to have (for whatever reason).
What's with the generalizations, anyway? You can't possibly know the motivation of every pirate in existence.
if the terms and conditions associated with a purchase are not to my liking, I do without it.
Why? It's not at all like stealing a physical object. If you pirated it when there was no way you'd buy it otherwise, they don't even lose a potential sale (actually, they did lose a potential sale whether you pirated it or not... when they implemented their DRM).
Pirates don't pirate because of DRM. They pirate because it is easier than working for x amount of hours and then driving to the store, hoping it is in stock, only to be hit with DRM.
If you made your living by creating music, art, or literature, I suspect you'd look at things very differently.
Why do people say this as if it makes any difference? "If you were in situation X, you'd feel differently!"
It doesn't matter. That could be said about you, me, and everyone on the planet. It's a mere assumption that they actually would look at things differently, but it could be said about anyone (if you were in my situation, you'd look at things differently). Whether or not they would look at things differently if they were in a different situation than they are now is irrelevant. That does not make their current views wrong.
and profoundly immoral
I think that's just subjective.
In any case, I personally see no reason that copyright should exist in any form. I don't care for artificial scarcity, and I wouldn't mind if less works were produced because there was no copyright.
Earlier, you said you had trouble believing so many people felt sad about a dead girl. I can quote the post, but hopefully you can save me the trouble with your memory of typing it.
That statement says nothing about whether or not I personally feel sad about this. I do indeed have trouble believing that
Despite what you say, I really don't think I can diagnose a mental disorder.
Despite what I asked, you mean? In any case: "How about you leave human emotion (happiness and sadness) to the people who actually feel it."
That's what made me ask that question.
Like I said, maybe you are perfectly normal.
You did?
You called a recently dead girl a lump of meat.
Yes, and? Is that not true? The girl herself is dead. All that's left is a lump of meat. That wasn't an insult directed at the person who once lived.
If you know anyone who likes thinking of this girl as a lump of meat, then congrats.
Whether they "like" it or not is quite irrelevant to me. If I cared about offending people, I'd probably never say a word about anything.
I am personally disgusted and hopefully you can understand that.
Can you understand why I'm not? I don't understand people who I'd deem "oversensitive."
It's only hypocrisy if they said that trolling about the death of someone is wrong in general. If they believe that it depends on the person, then it is not hypocrisy.
What makes you think the one who you replied to doesn't? What makes you think that they don't feel empathy for people that they actually know? Personally, I find it difficult to believe that many people really are saddened by her death. I don't know how they're feeling, but I suspect they're nothing more than pretty words.
Asperger's
The number of pretend psychologists here who try to insult others by (likely incorrectly) diagnosing mental disorders seems to be staggering.
The fact that someone seems to be more in control of their emotions than you are doesn't make them a sociopath, emotionless, or anything of the sort.
What comments? So merely making a comment that looks as if it is defending people who actually insulted/joked about her makes my comments "sick"? I do believe that's quite oversensitive.
That said, happy rainbows all around. No jokes or criticism allowed!
"make [funny] statements about dead girl"
I actually never did that.
Nobody here likes you
You speak for everyone, do you? Oh, well.
but the majority of people (who get sad when a young girl dies)
Oh? When did I ever say that I wasn't sad? I merely said that I think the people who get offended by the jokes/insulted are oversensitive.
How about you leave human emotion (happiness and sadness) to the people who actually feel it.
It is highly unlikely that a human wouldn't feel any emotion. What makes you think that I don't feel happiness or sadness? Or are you one of the many people here who have the amazing ability to (incorrectly) diagnose mental disorders will so little information?
What makes you think that the people who made those comments with jokes and insults don't feel emotion?
If you are missing empathy, you have a big enough hole in your life already and I feel bad for you, but there's nothing that can be done.
Not really. It's perfectly possible for someone to live a happy life without empathy as long as they themselves are happy.
I find it funny that when someone is slightly different from the norm (even so much as a small belief), people will make assumption after assumption about them and try to pretend to be psychologists. I simply care more about the living than a do about a dead body. I'm not going to feel offended because someone insulted/joked about someone that is dead. That's all I ever said here, and yet there has been assumption after assumption that people who feel that way don't feel emotion. I'd say they're both presumptuous and not very good pretend psychologists.
"if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
All right. No more criticism, jokes, or insults. Some people don't like it. Therefore, it should never be done.
Let's just ban all words. Someone could take offense to one of them. That would bring about the apocalypse. Anyone who disagrees isn't a 'proper' human!
They're still insensitive assholes with a sort of keyboards-only version of Tourette's and an incredible sense of entitlement to spout gibberish that comes from anonymity.
What entitlement? That said, I think it's good that they're not oversensitive. I don't even think that they're insensitive. Different people have different senses of humor and they're offended by different things. I guess anyone who personally offends me must be factually insensitive all around.
but do you think any of these dipshits would have the nerve to show up at the funeral and tell random mourners that the deceased wasn't that smart, it's only a Microsoft certification, blah, blah, blah?
Why do people keep bringing that up as if it's somehow relevant? Are their arguments/observations completely incorrect because people would beat them up if they dared to voice them in real life? Or are you just saying that you'd like to see it happen?
But, really, this isn't a funeral or anywhere close to one.
because I think part of it is due to factors that were beyond your control.
Part of what? Maybe you act the way you do due to factors that were beyond your control. But what does it matter?
That said, if you intended to refute anything I said, you didn't really reply to anything.
But for whatever reason, I'm sad for you.
I highly doubt that. Comments such as "I pity you" and "I'm sad for you" seem to be, more often than not, mere insults.
I guess our society has always had "misfits" who need to find an identity of their own.
And it always has had oversensitive people, as well.
And it looks like you're content being the person who makes these comments about a young girl's death.
What comments have I made other than that dead bodies are lumps of meat? I'm not the one who made those jokes or insults. But I do find it interesting that many people seem to say, "She's dead. The dead can't be insulted, joked about, or criticized. Therefore, all of your arguments are invalidated and you're objectively evil for even so much as appearing to defend people who do any of those things."
People are not offended by your insult to the dead
What insult to the dead did I make? And if that's the case, why would they make comments about being offended by those comments that insulted/joked about the dead?
they are offended by your stupidity
What stupidity? I disagree, therefore I'm an idiot? This is a subjective matter.
That said, if they were only offended by that, and not by the insults directed at the dead, then why would they bother bringing up those specific comments? It seems like they'd have to be taking the insults into account.
and a dead teenager is about as defenseless as it gets.
And dead (no need for defense if you're dead).
but certain basic tendencies tend to be common.
And?
and people who simply lack any degree of empathy with others and take pride in that lack. (Hint: you're in that last group, as far as I can tell from your postings.)
I've revealed nothing of the sort. I merely said that I'm not offended if someone insults or jokes about a dead person and that I'm amused when people are offended by such things. That does not mean that I have no empathy for the living.
It's not that she's dead; it's that she died young, before she had a chance to fulfill her early promise.
And?
No doubt in your mind you're superior to all of us who think it's unfortunate that she died
Where did you get the idea that I think I'm superior? Where did you get the idea that I think it's not unfortunate?
because you only feel amusement at others who think this is tragic.
I don't think you quite understand. I feel it is amusing not when someone thinks that this is tragic, but when someone gets offended by people who don't feel the same way as them (or by jokes, insults, etc).
you're an asshole.
Sounds subjective. I would've probably stated that as an opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
And? That doesn't mean that he's always in the 'wrong'.
I wonder why pirates don't post their stolen movies on youtube?
Their copied movies, you mean?
A reasonable person
What is "reasonable"?
would understand that "DeEzNuTs" is not the copyright holder for Avatar
Why? What if it's a bogus DMCA takedown request?
the laws are easy to follow.
Are they? Not if you're constantly getting DMCA takedown requests. Then you'll have to rely on some sort of automated system that will more than likely result in non-infringing material getting removed. That or give power to copyright holders. Either way, the consequences will likely be the same.
Doesn't this assume that the government is what some might call just?
You're correct, and there's big difference between RapidShare and the likes of Dropbox. MegaUpload, RapidShare etc is clearly profiting from copyrighted content.
No. They're profiting from advertisements and premium accounts. They provide a service. It has nothing to do with copyright infringement. But I guess websites that have users who may or may not be doing illegal things shouldn't be allowed to have advertisements or make money from the website at all because some of their users may be doing illegal things.
You are not entitled to access stuff just because you would not have purchased it otherwise.
He's not entitled? Only because the laws in certain countries right now say otherwise. There is no objective reason for this other than "the law says so" that I see.
Just because it is digital does not mean it is any different than walking into a store and shoplifting.
Just like how theft is no different than murder...
I disagree. If you take something from a store, that something is gone. The store loses something that it actually had. If you make a copy (in this case, a potentially illegal copy), no one loses anything. Except maybe potential profit, of course. But I wouldn't call the loss of potential gain "theft." It happens to me all the time, but I would never claim that someone stole from me.
And I don't even know what the point of those analogies was. Actual, tangible harm was inflicted in both of those situations.
If you would have never paid for your downloads, then you obviously perceived no value in them.
I don't think that makes any sense.
It could have been that he didn't have money to give them
It could have been that he didn't think they were worth paying for (if a pirated copy did not exist, he wouldn't pay for it).
It could have been any number of things. As far as I know, you can't read minds.
The thing is, I suspect you're lying. Not to me, and not purposely, but lying nonetheless: to yourself, and out of philosophical/ideological blindness.
I can play that game, too. The thing is, I suspect you're lying. Not to me, and not purposely, but lying nonetheless: to yourself, and out of philosophical/ideological blindness.
So what if you had never had those experiences?
Then I'd be a different person and I'd be none the wiser. What works would and would not have been created without copyright is likely impossible to determine (unless you can peer into alternate realities, of course). But, again, I don't really care.
Do you begin to see what you would lose without some kind of protection for intellectual property?
No. If intellectual property never existed, then I'd never have had those things to begin with. Therefore, I couldn't "lose" them, and I wouldn't even know about them (assuming they didn't exist, of course).
The better solution to that problem is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater
I disagree that that's the "better" solution.
In any case, the maximum amount of years of copyright I would agree to (if copyright should exist at all) would be 15. Although I think copyright should be abolished entirely (artists would, like everyone else, have to find ways to make money without being granted the ability to enforce artificial scarcity), that doesn't mean that I'm not open to agree to things that are slightly better than what we have now.
Anyway, my point is that taking extreme positions is a helluva lot easier to do on issues that do not affect your personal ability to make a living.
Making choices that will personally benefit you is also presumably a lot easier. In the end, though, it doesn't matter how 'easy' it was to come to the decision, or how 'biased' you are. That doesn't mean that you're wrong.
by what right am I entitled
By what right are you entitled to do anything at all? Depends on where you think rights come from, and whether you agree with them or not. The government? The magical rights fairy? To a pirate who probably disagrees with such laws, their lack of 'right' (according to the law) probably doesn't matter to them.
but don't feed me the standard line of how it's not actually stealing. Theft of services is still theft.
This is how I see it: a copyrighted work was downloaded without permission, and a loss of potential profit may or may not have happened. I don't see any theft there. I lose potential opportunities all the time, but I would never claim that they're theft. The pirate didn't steal the artist's time, either. That time and effort was already lost, and it was the artist's sole decision to use it up. The pirate didn't have anything to do with that.
Likewise, I suggest not claiming (if that's what you did) that your opinion about the subject is the be-all and end-all of arguments.
You can try _actually_ being their friend.. it's pretty nifty.
Not if you don't care for them to begin with. Or don't want to.
Guess that depends on the person, their interests, and their definition of "getting by".
Indeed. My point was that it all depends on the person.
but no one wants to promote them
Oh? And why would that be? Is it because they're bad at their jobs? Is it because they're slightly different? A combination of the two? Something else entirely?
You don't see them
I don't?
(it's a choice between Bill who was just at lunch talking about his new deck.. and Jim... you know.. never talks to anyone, headphones on all day.. wonder who's out the door?).
Which one is better at the job? That's all that matters to me. I don't care what irrelevant things Bill was just talking about.
because social skills imo _are_ part of the job now.
Talking about a job and talking about irrelevant things are quite different. The former is likely simple even for people who don't like doing the latter (probably most of them, anyway).
You don't have coders working in silos, you have teams working together ..
Depends on the job.
development of social skills
Being locked in a building isn't the only way to develop social skills. People that don't want to socialize simply won't do it. They'll either ignore everyone or just be forced into an uncomfortable environment (if they're shy or something such as that).
If they don't want to, I don't see the point of making them. I think the 'skill' is highly overrated. My experience is that you don't need to constantly talk to people or pretend to be their friend to get by.
People pirate because they don't want to pay for shit that they feel entitled to have (for whatever reason).
What's with the generalizations, anyway? You can't possibly know the motivation of every pirate in existence.
if the terms and conditions associated with a purchase are not to my liking, I do without it.
Why? It's not at all like stealing a physical object. If you pirated it when there was no way you'd buy it otherwise, they don't even lose a potential sale (actually, they did lose a potential sale whether you pirated it or not... when they implemented their DRM).
Pirates don't pirate because of DRM. They pirate because it is easier than working for x amount of hours and then driving to the store, hoping it is in stock, only to be hit with DRM.
Depends on the pirate.
If you made your living by creating music, art, or literature, I suspect you'd look at things very differently.
Why do people say this as if it makes any difference? "If you were in situation X, you'd feel differently!"
It doesn't matter. That could be said about you, me, and everyone on the planet. It's a mere assumption that they actually would look at things differently, but it could be said about anyone (if you were in my situation, you'd look at things differently). Whether or not they would look at things differently if they were in a different situation than they are now is irrelevant. That does not make their current views wrong.
and profoundly immoral
I think that's just subjective.
In any case, I personally see no reason that copyright should exist in any form. I don't care for artificial scarcity, and I wouldn't mind if less works were produced because there was no copyright.
Earlier, you said you had trouble believing so many people felt sad about a dead girl. I can quote the post, but hopefully you can save me the trouble with your memory of typing it.
That statement says nothing about whether or not I personally feel sad about this. I do indeed have trouble believing that
Despite what you say, I really don't think I can diagnose a mental disorder.
Despite what I asked, you mean? In any case: "How about you leave human emotion (happiness and sadness) to the people who actually feel it."
That's what made me ask that question.
Like I said, maybe you are perfectly normal.
You did?
You called a recently dead girl a lump of meat.
Yes, and? Is that not true? The girl herself is dead. All that's left is a lump of meat. That wasn't an insult directed at the person who once lived.
If you know anyone who likes thinking of this girl as a lump of meat, then congrats.
Whether they "like" it or not is quite irrelevant to me. If I cared about offending people, I'd probably never say a word about anything.
I am personally disgusted and hopefully you can understand that.
Can you understand why I'm not? I don't understand people who I'd deem "oversensitive."
It's only hypocrisy if they said that trolling about the death of someone is wrong in general. If they believe that it depends on the person, then it is not hypocrisy.
But that would clearly make you a sociopath...
we have this feeling called "empathy".
What makes you think the one who you replied to doesn't? What makes you think that they don't feel empathy for people that they actually know? Personally, I find it difficult to believe that many people really are saddened by her death. I don't know how they're feeling, but I suspect they're nothing more than pretty words.
Asperger's
The number of pretend psychologists here who try to insult others by (likely incorrectly) diagnosing mental disorders seems to be staggering.
The fact that someone seems to be more in control of their emotions than you are doesn't make them a sociopath, emotionless, or anything of the sort.
It's part of being human.
They're aliens!
sick
Subjective.
comments about a dead 9 year old girl.
What comments? So merely making a comment that looks as if it is defending people who actually insulted/joked about her makes my comments "sick"? I do believe that's quite oversensitive.
That said, happy rainbows all around. No jokes or criticism allowed!
"make [funny] statements about dead girl"
I actually never did that.
Nobody here likes you
You speak for everyone, do you? Oh, well.
but the majority of people (who get sad when a young girl dies)
Oh? When did I ever say that I wasn't sad? I merely said that I think the people who get offended by the jokes/insulted are oversensitive.
How about you leave human emotion (happiness and sadness) to the people who actually feel it.
It is highly unlikely that a human wouldn't feel any emotion. What makes you think that I don't feel happiness or sadness? Or are you one of the many people here who have the amazing ability to (incorrectly) diagnose mental disorders will so little information?
What makes you think that the people who made those comments with jokes and insults don't feel emotion?
If you are missing empathy, you have a big enough hole in your life already and I feel bad for you, but there's nothing that can be done.
Not really. It's perfectly possible for someone to live a happy life without empathy as long as they themselves are happy.
I find it funny that when someone is slightly different from the norm (even so much as a small belief), people will make assumption after assumption about them and try to pretend to be psychologists. I simply care more about the living than a do about a dead body. I'm not going to feel offended because someone insulted/joked about someone that is dead. That's all I ever said here, and yet there has been assumption after assumption that people who feel that way don't feel emotion. I'd say they're both presumptuous and not very good pretend psychologists.
"if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
All right. No more criticism, jokes, or insults. Some people don't like it. Therefore, it should never be done.
Let's just ban all words. Someone could take offense to one of them. That would bring about the apocalypse. Anyone who disagrees isn't a 'proper' human!
They're still insensitive assholes with a sort of keyboards-only version of Tourette's and an incredible sense of entitlement to spout gibberish that comes from anonymity.
What entitlement? That said, I think it's good that they're not oversensitive. I don't even think that they're insensitive. Different people have different senses of humor and they're offended by different things. I guess anyone who personally offends me must be factually insensitive all around.
but do you think any of these dipshits would have the nerve to show up at the funeral and tell random mourners that the deceased wasn't that smart, it's only a Microsoft certification, blah, blah, blah?
Why do people keep bringing that up as if it's somehow relevant? Are their arguments/observations completely incorrect because people would beat them up if they dared to voice them in real life? Or are you just saying that you'd like to see it happen?
But, really, this isn't a funeral or anywhere close to one.
because I think part of it is due to factors that were beyond your control.
Part of what? Maybe you act the way you do due to factors that were beyond your control. But what does it matter?
That said, if you intended to refute anything I said, you didn't really reply to anything.
But for whatever reason, I'm sad for you.
I highly doubt that. Comments such as "I pity you" and "I'm sad for you" seem to be, more often than not, mere insults.
I guess our society has always had "misfits" who need to find an identity of their own.
And it always has had oversensitive people, as well.
And it looks like you're content being the person who makes these comments about a young girl's death.
What comments have I made other than that dead bodies are lumps of meat? I'm not the one who made those jokes or insults. But I do find it interesting that many people seem to say, "She's dead. The dead can't be insulted, joked about, or criticized. Therefore, all of your arguments are invalidated and you're objectively evil for even so much as appearing to defend people who do any of those things."
People are not offended by your insult to the dead
What insult to the dead did I make? And if that's the case, why would they make comments about being offended by those comments that insulted/joked about the dead?
they are offended by your stupidity
What stupidity? I disagree, therefore I'm an idiot? This is a subjective matter.
That said, if they were only offended by that, and not by the insults directed at the dead, then why would they bother bringing up those specific comments? It seems like they'd have to be taking the insults into account.
and a dead teenager is about as defenseless as it gets.
And dead (no need for defense if you're dead).
but certain basic tendencies tend to be common.
And?
and people who simply lack any degree of empathy with others and take pride in that lack. (Hint: you're in that last group, as far as I can tell from your postings.)
I've revealed nothing of the sort. I merely said that I'm not offended if someone insults or jokes about a dead person and that I'm amused when people are offended by such things. That does not mean that I have no empathy for the living.
It's not that she's dead; it's that she died young, before she had a chance to fulfill her early promise.
And?
No doubt in your mind you're superior to all of us who think it's unfortunate that she died
Where did you get the idea that I think I'm superior? Where did you get the idea that I think it's not unfortunate?
because you only feel amusement at others who think this is tragic.
I don't think you quite understand. I feel it is amusing not when someone thinks that this is tragic, but when someone gets offended by people who don't feel the same way as them (or by jokes, insults, etc).
you're an asshole.
Sounds subjective. I would've probably stated that as an opinion.
1) Act like an asshole
I don't think I did that, though.
3) Call claims "subjective" and whine that people are so sensitive
I'm merely pointing out that the things that they stated as fact are actually subjective.
It's indeed amusing.