I never said I streamed, but if making up facts about the person you are talking too constitutes a discussion, please continue and tell me more things I'm doing. Maybe my mom wears combat boots?
" So either you don't actually watch porn, or you're full of shit."
I watch plenty of porn. The fact that your way of defending your position is declaring some sort of weird false dichotomy really indicates that you position can't stand on your own.
Seeing people for what they are. That's your argument. Your argument is that you want women to be blurry because you don't want to see their flaws. You want your reality censored. That is not the same as lower resolution being better. That *is* the same with my initial assessment that you are defective.
Maybe if you learn to appreciate women, you can learn to appreciate 1080p. What a sad fucking image of females and femininity you must have if you can't even look at them in lifelike quality. I'd suggest exploring your sexual spectrum more; maybe you don't actually like women, and that's why you don't like seeing them in detail. Or maybe you have some kind of prudish mental defect with sex. Catholic?
I love the "anyone who watches porn should be familiar". Fucking hilarious shit. I wonder how the porn industry bothered to cause blu-ray to win the blu-ray vs hd-dvd race, if anyone who watches it knows it looks worse? You'd think their blu-ray and hd sales would have plummeted to zero, since according to you, 100% of people who watch porn think like you.
Hilarious, man. And yes, it's exactly like the vinyl enthusiasts.
I guess you must really hate the movies, too, since movie theatre resolution is much closer to 1080p (by virtue of being "infinite" resolution analog prints) than 408p, dvd, or vhs quality. Lol.
also, 480p on a 52" 1080p is total fucking shit. If you want everything to be fuzzy, as if you have vision problems, it's great. I have 20/20 vision. Life never looks as shitty as 480p. DVD/480 on a big (>50") tv is basically the same density as VHS on a small (
Also, a 1080 web-dl looks noticeably better than a 1080 capture. I can tell in the first 2-3 seconds if it's been re-encoded (capture) or is straight-copy (web-dl).
I have no idea why you brought porn into this, as if I've never watched porn before (huh?), or as if this conversation was ever limited to porn.
As to me having never watched porn, does keeping your position on the subject actually require you to make up facts about others?
Stitching? Lacquers? No idea what you're talking about. Watched plenty of 1080p porn. Are you into plastic-surgery freaks or something? I actually now believe you to be making up facts about me *and* porn to try to legitimize your position.
But I understand. It's like arguing with a vinyl enthusiast -- They have a bunch of subjective, "religious", un-falsifiable claims to support their position, while people who support modern standards like FLAC or even CD have scientific, objective, falsifiable claims to support their position.
They are. If you actually want to, y'know, hear the sound reproduced faithfully - which is the whole point of listening to music - a cd will offer you better quality than all mp3 options and almost all streaming options.
It's strange that the majority of people who don't actually give a shit about fidelity get to determine the "winner", and not the ones who actually compare things. But hey, that's tyranny of the majority for ya.
I don't know if you live on another planet, or are another species, but I really can't comprehend how anybody could possibly say any of what you just said. I can only assume it's some form of nostalgic conditioning where you've decided something less accurate somehow looks better, or being shown something that's objectively better somehow offends what you're conditioned to see. I don't understand at all.
There is never any situation where a lower resolution looks better than a higher resolution, given all other variables being the same.
It's just never, ever, ever, ever, ever the case. Ever. I don't know how you can say what you just said. It's about as odd as "I enjoy being burned by fires". I honestly think you must have poor vision, or extreme cognitive bias. You're "ruined" as someone who can objectively compare 2 things. You even imply that by saying your'e "unimpressed" when you actually see something better.
Would you make the argument that lower resolution cameras are better? Lower bitrate audio? That getting lasik will make life seem unimpressive? That vinyl is better than digital?
lol sounds like you're watching the wrong porn! If you want no physical flaws like real people in the real world, might I suggest Hentai? Or whatever the animated version of that is called?
If HD streaming gives worse-looking content than DVD, then that would indicate to me that BluRay *is* the winner. If that's the one way to get reliable HD content for those that care about getting HD content that isn't compressed down -- the winner is BluRay.
Kids who grew up listening to 128kbps also claim to prefer it. Better is still better. I'll watch SD content if I want to see people where I can't quite discern their full expression because I can't see their pupils in distant shots, or a general lack of all detail.
Cops can already wear a camera and can already run facial recognition. You seem to be confusing the absence of this law as being equivalent to a prohibition of activities you do not like. It is not, and your logic is fallacious.
I have a problem with you thinking this is a problem. What you are essentially saying is that making police accountable for bad deeds has a "dark side" of actual criminals actually being prosecuted for actual crimes. Ummm... That's a huge improvement to framed/scam crimes, which police charge people with EVERY day.
It's a matter of choosing my battles. I don't make it a point to explain myself to people who willfully misunderstand me. I think there's some instagrammed stock photobullshit that probably has those words in front of it in cursive on a tumblr somewhere...
Me? i was the one responding to the guy who said they weren't real barriers. So we're agreeing. So I don't understand why your comment sounds like disagreeing.
Except it is, and you don't dictate how reality works. All I have to do is have made a purchasing decision by that criteria at any point in my own life (which you can't disprove) in order to have a counter example that disproves your idiotic statement.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said I streamed, but if making up facts about the person you are talking too constitutes a discussion, please continue and tell me more things I'm doing. Maybe my mom wears combat boots?
I watch plenty of porn. The fact that your way of defending your position is declaring some sort of weird false dichotomy really indicates that you position can't stand on your own.
Seeing people for what they are. That's your argument. Your argument is that you want women to be blurry because you don't want to see their flaws. You want your reality censored. That is not the same as lower resolution being better. That *is* the same with my initial assessment that you are defective.
Maybe if you learn to appreciate women, you can learn to appreciate 1080p. What a sad fucking image of females and femininity you must have if you can't even look at them in lifelike quality. I'd suggest exploring your sexual spectrum more; maybe you don't actually like women, and that's why you don't like seeing them in detail. Or maybe you have some kind of prudish mental defect with sex. Catholic?
I love the "anyone who watches porn should be familiar". Fucking hilarious shit. I wonder how the porn industry bothered to cause blu-ray to win the blu-ray vs hd-dvd race, if anyone who watches it knows it looks worse? You'd think their blu-ray and hd sales would have plummeted to zero, since according to you, 100% of people who watch porn think like you.
Hilarious, man. And yes, it's exactly like the vinyl enthusiasts.
I guess you must really hate the movies, too, since movie theatre resolution is much closer to 1080p (by virtue of being "infinite" resolution analog prints) than 408p, dvd, or vhs quality. Lol.
also, 480p on a 52" 1080p is total fucking shit. If you want everything to be fuzzy, as if you have vision problems, it's great. I have 20/20 vision. Life never looks as shitty as 480p. DVD/480 on a big (>50") tv is basically the same density as VHS on a small ( Also, a 1080 web-dl looks noticeably better than a 1080 capture. I can tell in the first 2-3 seconds if it's been re-encoded (capture) or is straight-copy (web-dl).
As to me having never watched porn, does keeping your position on the subject actually require you to make up facts about others?
Stitching? Lacquers? No idea what you're talking about. Watched plenty of 1080p porn. Are you into plastic-surgery freaks or something? I actually now believe you to be making up facts about me *and* porn to try to legitimize your position.
But I understand. It's like arguing with a vinyl enthusiast -- They have a bunch of subjective, "religious", un-falsifiable claims to support their position, while people who support modern standards like FLAC or even CD have scientific, objective, falsifiable claims to support their position.
It's strange that the majority of people who don't actually give a shit about fidelity get to determine the "winner", and not the ones who actually compare things. But hey, that's tyranny of the majority for ya.
There is never any situation where a lower resolution looks better than a higher resolution, given all other variables being the same. It's just never, ever, ever, ever, ever the case. Ever. I don't know how you can say what you just said. It's about as odd as "I enjoy being burned by fires". I honestly think you must have poor vision, or extreme cognitive bias. You're "ruined" as someone who can objectively compare 2 things. You even imply that by saying your'e "unimpressed" when you actually see something better.
Would you make the argument that lower resolution cameras are better? Lower bitrate audio? That getting lasik will make life seem unimpressive? That vinyl is better than digital?
lol sounds like you're watching the wrong porn! If you want no physical flaws like real people in the real world, might I suggest Hentai? Or whatever the animated version of that is called?
(Actually, the winner is bittorrent...)
Kids who grew up listening to 128kbps also claim to prefer it. Better is still better. I'll watch SD content if I want to see people where I can't quite discern their full expression because I can't see their pupils in distant shots, or a general lack of all detail.
I was actually kidding/trolling anyway. I haven't inserted a disc into a device to watch or listen to something in many many years.
Sincerely, Guy who watched 0% of content in HD 5 years ago, and watches 95% of content in HD now.
Yes. Now shut the fuck up.
Cops can already wear a camera and can already run facial recognition. You seem to be confusing the absence of this law as being equivalent to a prohibition of activities you do not like. It is not, and your logic is fallacious.
I have a problem with you thinking this is a problem. What you are essentially saying is that making police accountable for bad deeds has a "dark side" of actual criminals actually being prosecuted for actual crimes. Ummm... That's a huge improvement to framed/scam crimes, which police charge people with EVERY day.
We already hear that almost daily anyway.
By connotation, I was talking about the battle I thought I'd been invited to -- that of reasoned debate, where I have to actually use my brain a bit.
Those cycles are lost on him. But sure, I'll move my fingers some.
More ad hominem bullshit from the pro-censor bootlicker. (I waited this long. May as well join you in hell.)
Imagine my surprise where you continue your ad hominem tactics, and pretend like remembering instagram motivators is a measure of intelligence.
It's a matter of choosing my battles. I don't make it a point to explain myself to people who willfully misunderstand me. I think there's some instagrammed stock photobullshit that probably has those words in front of it in cursive on a tumblr somewhere...
It's hard to take seriously anyone who uses both ad hominem and strawman in the same comment.
You are unfairly forcing others to operate by the same faith in information sources that you have.
Your quick on-line search sucks balls. I've been buying blu-rays for around $1/ea for 1.5 years. Amazon. You couldn't find amazon?
Because it hasn't stopped it from happening in the past! DUH.
Me? i was the one responding to the guy who said they weren't real barriers. So we're agreeing. So I don't understand why your comment sounds like disagreeing.
Except it is, and you don't dictate how reality works. All I have to do is have made a purchasing decision by that criteria at any point in my own life (which you can't disprove) in order to have a counter example that disproves your idiotic statement.