Randomness thread, part two.

[wufwugy]

I meant in terms of legal defense. Her story wasn't exactly strong either.

Edit: I want to clarify what I mean by her story not being all that strong. The girl started off by inviting him to come back to her apartment with her and her friend (who he already knew). Then they decided to go to his flat *after they had already left*. Once he got there, he intentionally had the girls pour their own drinks. The arrangement of the furniture in the flat also doesn't support her claims. There are a ton of holes in her story that would make it impossible to successfully charge the guy.

didnt tyson get convicted for less?

[wufwugy]

since we have a lawyer hurr, i wanna opinion on tyson. my back of the napkin sketch of it is that he got railroaded. the fact that the chick had a history of false rape accusations is enough for me. not sure why it was inadmissable

[spoonitnow]

Yeah Tyson got screwed.

[chardrian]

since we have a lawyer hurr, i wanna opinion on tyson. my back of the napkin sketch of it is that he got railroaded. the fact that the chick had a history of false rape accusations is enough for me. not sure why it was inadmissable

I don't know the facts of the case so that would help a lot. If she truly had a history of false rape accusations then the only reason the judge would not allow that in is if he determined that this evidence's probative value was outweighed by it's prejudicial effect or that it would confuse the issues or mislead the jury.

[JKDS]

Oh yeah baby, talk 403 to me.

[OngBonga]

Isn't Tyson black?

[spoonitnow]

Yeah instead let's mislead the jury by ignoring how some sack of shit cunt has a history of lying about being raped and has accused yet another guy of raping her.

[OngBonga]

I think in some parts of America, "I couldn't have raped her because I am white" would be a viable defence.

[wufwugy]

I don't know the facts of the case so that would help a lot. If she truly had a history of false rape accusations then the only reason the judge would not allow that in is if he determined that this evidence's probative value was outweighed by it's prejudicial effect or that it would confuse the issues or mislead the jury.

which means there must have been some compelling evidence that he raped her, right?

i thought there wasn't, that it was mostly a he-said she-said thing.

[chardrian]

which means there must have been some compelling evidence that he raped her, right?

i thought there wasn't, that it was mostly a he-said she-said thing.

like I said, I really don't know the facts of the case. If it truly was a he said/she said thing, then yeah it is usually hard to get a conviction but there should be a reasonable doubt as long as you give any credibility to the he said part. But juries are funny beasts and that's why so many attorneys are petrified of them - so presuming that this jury actually followed the law and evidence is probably a silly presumption to begin with.

[OngBonga]

I'm thinking about curing someone of AIDS a decade after I'm dead.

When do you want St Ong's Day? I'll try and make the curing happen on that day.

[spoonitnow]

This is the most baller shit ever. Chica made this for me in Photoshop and then put it on a mouse pad for an early Christmas present.



This is Donald Trump fighting Vladimir Putin on horseback with lightsabers dressed as British soldiers.

[wufwugy]

everybody knows putin rides a bear

[wufwugy]

i wonder about putin's comments about trump. i wonder if he only said nice things because he knows americans dont like his opinions and he's afraid of a trump white house

[wufwugy]

but then i recall that russia doesn't have that deep of an understanding (or care) of american politics.

[OngBonga]

Putin had high praise for Sepp Blatter too. I think Putin likes corrupt businessmen.

[spoonitnow]

Putin likes strength and masculinity.

[wufwugy]

Putin likes strength and masculinity.

[a500lbgorilla]

Putin likes strength and masculinity.

Hannibal used to tempt head-strong Roman generals into battles they were under-prepared for to some notable success.

[a500lbgorilla]

Also, I've been watching this Roosevelts documentary on Netflix. It's like 14 total hours I think and it's incredible.

Teddy Roosevelt was insanely awesome. I highly recommend it.

[wufwugy]

sometimes lately ive been wondering if im ever gonna become a christian again. don't get me wrong, im atheist through and through, but believe me when i tell ya life is better when you can put your faith into something else and everything's gonna be all right. ive noticed that it's possible that i worry more and stress more as an atheist than i did when i was a believer. it could be other things though.

[spoonitnow]

Sze-ma Niu asked about the superior man. The Master said, "The superior man has neither anxiety nor fear."

"Being without anxiety or fear!" said Nui;"does this constitute what we call the superior man?"

The Master said, "When internal examination discovers nothing wrong, what is there to be anxious about, what is there to fear?"

[rong]

Putin likes strength and masculinity.

Meh more like he likes foolish opponents he can easily manipulate.

[rong]

sometimes lately ive been wondering if im ever gonna become a christian again. don't get me wrong, im atheist through and through, but believe me when i tell ya life is better when you can put your faith into something else and everything's gonna be all right. ive noticed that it's possible that i worry more and stress more as an atheist than i did when i was a believer. it could be other things though.

Yes, it probably is easier to go through life as a complete fucking retard than actually acknowledging problems and trying to fix them.

[wufwugy]

Yes, it probably is easier to go through life as a complete fucking retard than actually acknowledging problems and trying to fix them.

what a clueless thing to say.

[spoonitnow]

Meh more like he likes foolish opponents he can easily manipulate.

Yeah like Obutthurtbama and his pussyfooting around the ISIS issue.

[a500lbgorilla]

sometimes lately ive been wondering if im ever gonna become a christian again. don't get me wrong, im atheist through and through, but believe me when i tell ya life is better when you can put your faith into something else and everything's gonna be all right. ive noticed that it's possible that i worry more and stress more as an atheist than i did when i was a believer. it could be other things though.

Go Buddhism or out into the woods for a trip. But I do agree, there's a reason we have such an array of built in stupidity - it's psychologically useful.

[OngBonga]

...but believe me when i tell ya life is better when you can put your faith into something else and everything's gonna be all right.

But why the Christianity? Is that right and all the others wrong?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm only Christian when I swear - and only sometimes at that.

Frankly, it's a source of intellectual curiosity about myself. I have made so many mental notes to stop using someone else's religion as a profanity, but it remains.

I blame childhood imprinting and the fact that swearing is sometimes triggered as a automatic response, without conscious forethought.

[JKDS]

ive noticed that it's possible that i worry more and stress more as an atheist than i did when i was a believer. it could be other things though.

Stop bring pessimistic. There are tons of "what ifs" to agonize over and use as reasons not to do something. Spend more time thinking about positive "What ifs" though. The world is hard enough without thinking about how it's gonna screw you over every 5 minutes and waving off all the good that could happen.

I studied for 2.5 months for an exam that decided my future, then waited 3 months for results. I know the pessimistic "what if" game very well, and its not one that you should play.

[wufwugy]

But why the Christianity? Is that right and all the others wrong?

none of them are right. as rilla put it, psychologically useful.

why christianity? i come from a very fundamentalist protestant family. i haven't been a true believer for many years now, but was for most of my life. i understand christianity. i (mostly) think the way christians do. ive tried the tao and the buddha and they've not done much (ofc looking for them to "do" anything is missing their points entirely). on some occasions -- rare ones, but they've happened -- at night ive been trying to sleep and in some halfway mode and subconsciously fretting about some bullshit in my life and then it inadvertently pops into my mind that god is in control and my problems are a part of a plan and everything is gonna be just fine, and then i experience a great sensation of relief. ofc it doesn't last that long because my conscious mind knows god isn't real, but it's my mind reverting back to its (beneficial) habits it will probably never lose.

for the first several years i was atheist, i was pretty upset about it. i wanted to believe in god. it felt so much better. i just couldn't do it.

part of why im more open to christianity now than i was for most of my atheist existence is that ive since gotten over my arrogance in thinking that the perpetuation of unsubstantiated spiritual claims is somehow wrong, and i have come to see it for the culture and psychological utility it is.

[a500lbgorilla]

Faith is a worthwhile thing, but you can't pretend that you knew atheism and can find God again.

Not unless you're willing to have faith in yourself. And that's a bit of a bitch to manage.

[a500lbgorilla]

at night ive been trying to sleep and in some halfway mode and subconsciously fretting about some bullshit in my life and then it inadvertently pops into my mind that god is in control and my problems are a part of a plan and everything is gonna be just fine, and then i experience a great sensation of relief

And yeah, this is why it's so useful. To have an unending sense that it will work out if you just rest up tonight and lean into it tomorrow. It's very useful, and I'd like to believe it can be had through just a sense of growth and willing and all the action that comes with it.

[a500lbgorilla]

Wait, it's great that your dreamful hours are filled with your real-life problems. It means that you're already leaning into the obstacles and problems in your way and tapping into all your reserves to tackle them.

[a500lbgorilla]

And you come up with Christianity?

Bitch, stand on your own two feet.

[a500lbgorilla]

I now charge a quarter/hour for my psychological services.

[OngBonga]

at night ive been trying to sleep and in some halfway mode and subconsciously fretting about some bullshit in my life and then it inadvertently pops into my mind that god is in control and my problems are a part of a plan and everything is gonna be just fine, and then i experience a great sensation of relief.

Yeah I've gone through the "big plan" thought process, and unltimately I start to realise how fucked up this supposed great plan is.

I get through some of my issues by acknowledging that it's just fate, or meant to be, or whatever. There is no requirement for this to be the conscious decision of an all mighty being, in fact if I thought that it would probably piss me off, like what the fuck is beardy man doing fucking with me head, is he some sort of sadist?

If God exists, he has a lot to fucking answer for.

[spoonitnow]

part of why im more open to christianity now than i was for most of my atheist existence is that ive since gotten over my arrogance in thinking that the perpetuation of unsubstantiated spiritual claims is somehow wrong, and i have come to see it for the culture and psychological utility it is.

+1

[a500lbgorilla]

+1

Ding Ding Ding

[boost]

I used to have a lot of anxieties related to the ultimate meaning and whatnot.. but I think I just sort of got over it.

Poker analogies are lame, but... life is a game of acting with incomplete knowledge. You can only seek to improve and make the best possible choices given the information you're privy to, and if you actively try to hone your perspective to reflect reality as accurately as possible, you'll win in the long run. Or you'll run bad in the long run. But either way you gave yourself the most EV possible. Faith is a hack that can alleviate some of the stress of having to constantly be on top of your game, but ultimately, as a cost of belief, you must be sacrificing life EV since we can reasonably assume unwarranted faith causes our perception of reality to be less accurate.

[wufwugy]

unwarranted faith causes our perception of reality to be less accurate.

it probably does. the christians i know who i would describe as having their heads screwed on straight about most things (like accepting evolution and not pushing their beliefs into the public sphere) are still pretty low on the curve on other things (like fear of realism in movies and fear of sexuality).

[boost]

Right, but here's the thing, I don't exactly think it's the wrong choice to do what you can to maintain the delusion (as if it's actually a choice), it's just not the choice I'd prefer. Holding onto the delusion is likely, at the very least help maintain your station in life, and potentially assist you in reaching a high level of relative mediocrity. But if you never let go, you're almost certainly putting a cap on any progress beyond. I kind of see it as a question of risk tolerance.

[spoonitnow]

Norway is having to spend more tax dollars to try to teach their invaders, shit I mean immigrants, shit I mean refugees to stop raping people: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/wo...eat-women.html

Aka they're letting shit like this just keep going on:

NORWAY: IMMIGRANTS BRUTALLY GANG RAPE 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL, ONE GETS OFF WITH COMMUNITY SERVICE
Culprits sodomized girl to the point of her wanting to commit suicide
http://www.infowars.com/norway-immig...unity-service/

In Norway, almost half of all rapes committed in Oslo in 2011 were carried out by individuals of African, Middle Eastern or Asian origin, despite the fact that Muslim immigrants only represent 1.5-2 per cent of the population.

Keep letting them in, dipshits.

[wufwugy]

ive a friend who lived in africa many years of his life. his parents are missionaries. he liked his time in africa quite a lot. about two years ago he was beginning the process of teaching english in korea. i asked him why not africa since he liked it so much and is comfortable there. he said that the students are garbage. not because they're not smart, but because they value cheating and underhanded behavior. the culture has no dignity. it teaches that it's better to do the wrong thing and get away with it than to do the right thing.


as for immigration. the easy thing to do is let them in and not fix them (yes shitty people need fixing). this is what most current immigration policies across the modern world do. the next easy thing to do is not let them in and be done with it (japan's got it covered). the hard thing to do, which i think is the right thing, is to let them in and acknowledge any problems they bring. this would mean that they're subject to extra profiling, extra responsibilities, and given far less leeway. continue until shitty people are no longer shitty people.

[spoonitnow]

ive a friend who lived in africa many years of his life. his parents are missionaries. he liked his time in africa quite a lot. about two years ago he was beginning the process of teaching english in korea. i asked him why not africa since he liked it so much and is comfortable there. he said that the students are garbage. not because they're not smart, but because they value cheating and underhanded behavior. the culture has no dignity. it teaches that it's better to do the wrong thing and get away with it than to do the right thing.


as for immigration. the easy thing to do is let them in and not fix them (yes shitty people need fixing). this is what most current immigration policies across the modern world do. the next easy thing to do is not let them in and be done with it (japan's got it covered). the hard thing to do, which i think is the right thing, is to let them in and acknowledge any problems they bring. this would mean that they're subject to extra profiling, extra responsibilities, and given far less leeway. continue until shitty people are no longer shitty people.

I'm in favor of letting in fewer to begin with and focusing the resources that would have been spent trying to train these people not to gang rape 14 year old girls into other problems. One option would be to spend that money helping these people to have a less shitty country to call home in the first place so that they don't have to run off to somewhere else and fuck that up for everybody who already lives there.

[wufwugy]

that's true. the problem is avoided when healthy policies are encouraged. like how the main culprit for mexicans leaving mexico is the drug war.

[wufwugy]

it's a rare sight that such solid logic is used in public policy. i love how astounded she is at the end. it's like this is the first time she's been confronted by the folly of her ideas and she knows it but can't deal with it

[spoonitnow]

that's true. the problem is avoided when healthy policies are encouraged. like how the main culprit for mexicans leaving mexico is the drug war.

+1

[OngBonga]

Yeah I want old light bulbs because freedom of choice.

Also, I don't want diesel or electric trains to take me places, I want steam. And I want those nice shapely cars from the old days, instead of modern, crappy looking safer and cleaner cars. Old cars look nicer. Like old light bulbs.

Why did he have to mention old light bulbs? He was onto something until he shat that out of his mouth.

[wufwugy]

Yeah I want old light bulbs because freedom of choice.

Also, I don't want diesel or electric trains to take me places, I want steam. And I want those nice shapely cars from the old days, instead of modern, crappy looking safer and cleaner cars. Old cars look nicer. Like old light bulbs.

Why did he have to mention old light bulbs? He was onto something until he shat that out of his mouth.

because they're more economical for some people in some ways.

the economy is trillions and trillions of small yet varied interactions happening at once and over a period of time, all with different levels of marginal benefits for all sorts of different reasons. just because from one person's perspective it may not seem preferred or economical to consume a particular item, doesn't mean it isn't for somebody else. not allowing people to consume what you deride as the wrong choice increases costs and reduces prosperity. this is one of the most basic economic principles, yet the political class is illiterate on the subject.

[OngBonga]

Ok, so people should have the right to use shitty old lightbulbs, even if they are more damaging to the environment than modern ones? Just because it might save someone somewhere a few bucks?

No.

This is why I took issue with the light bulb thing. I mean who the fuck cares about old light bulbs? They're shit, they don't last nearly as long as new ones, and they use more energy. I can't remember the last time I had to change my lightbulb.

He comes across as a luddite when he says that. I don't want new fangled light bulbs, I want the right to change mine every fucking week while paying more to use the bloody thing.

Yes, they're more expensive to buy, but not by much. I can't see the economic case for allowing people to use more energy than necessary. It might save someone some money in the short term, but long term it won't, and the cost of that one person's short term economic benefit is greater pollution.

So... are our individual rights to have the freedom to buy crappy inferior products more important than our responisbilities to the environment?

It's a good thing that old light bulbs are becoming a thing of the past.

If we were talking about the majority or products, well I don't think this argument would apply. But cmon. Fucking light bulbs. Who cares?

[OngBonga]

I want the new Star Wars film on VHS.

They best produce it on VHS, otherwise I'm going to kick up a fuss about my economic rights and whatnot.

[a500lbgorilla]

Anyone seen the new Star Wars movie?

[OngBonga]

Anyone seen the new Star Wars movie?

No, and I'm not going to. It's all over my facebook and I'm sick of it already.

Overhyped bunch of shite.

[a500lbgorilla]

More of a Star Trek type, then?

[OngBonga]

More of a Star Trek type, then?

Not really. I mean that was watchable in the old days, but so were the original Star Wars films.

I loved Star Wars when I was a kid. Although I was more into Indiana Jones and Ghostbusters.

[a500lbgorilla]

Not really. I mean that was watchable in the old days, but so were the original Star Wars films.

I loved Star Wars when I was a kid. Although I was more into Indiana Jones and Ghostbusters.

You know how when you're really young you watch 1 movie over and over to the point that it drives your parents crazy? Ghostbusters was that movie for me.

Indiana Jones is legit too.

[JKDS]

I personally loved it.

But, it's getting understandable heat as a fan service film.

The new star trek looks like shit tho. Wtf even was that trailer?

[wufwugy]

Ok, so people should have the right to use shitty old lightbulbs, even if they are more damaging to the environment than modern ones? Just because it might save someone somewhere a few bucks?

If just a few bucks are being saved by some from using the old tech then it means the newer tech has been mostly adopted by consumers, and thus the measurement of damage to the environment from the old tech wouldn't even touch the scale. Additionally, the negative externality creating by forcing somebody to lose prosperity for unnecessary reasons is typically larger than the negative externality "solved" by doing so.

He comes across as a luddite when he says that. I don't want new fangled light bulbs, I want the right to change mine every fucking week while paying more to use the bloody thing.

Just because you don't see the value in your life doesn't mean the value in other instances doesn't exist.

Yes, they're more expensive to buy, but not by much. I can't see the economic case for allowing people to use more energy than necessary. It might save someone some money in the short term, but long term it won't, and the cost of that one person's short term economic benefit is greater pollution.

The economic case is that the least beneficial behavior is punished by the reality of costs. We find that we get less social benefit from trying to regulate behavior than we do by letting costs naturally dictate.

So... are our individual rights to have the freedom to buy crappy inferior products more important than our responisbilities to the environment?

It's a good thing that old light bulbs are becoming a thing of the past.

If we were talking about the majority or products, well I don't think this argument would apply. But cmon. Fucking light bulbs. Who cares?

Apply this idea to other things you believe should be free and you'll find you disagree with your logic. The right to buy what you want is as important as the right to say what you want. Nobody wants to strip a bigot's right to say bigoted things because we see how great of a negative externality that would be. Our logic should be no different when applied to other things, but sadly it is. When we don't defend the rights of people to make economic decisions we disagree with, we have inadvertently not defended our own right to make economic decisions other people disagree with.

[OngBonga]

You know how when you're really young you watch 1 movie over and over to the point that it drives your parents crazy? Ghostbusters was that movie for me.

Indiana Jones is legit too.

I'm so glad they decided to not bother with a third Ghostbusters. It would have ruined the charm. I have flat out refused to watch the last episode of Indiana Jones. As far as I'm concerned it's a trilogy and always will remain a trilogy.

Same with Star Wars. It's a trilogy. Fuck the bollocks that came in recent times.

[wufwugy]

I want the new Star Wars film on VHS.

They best produce it on VHS, otherwise I'm going to kick up a fuss about my economic rights and whatnot.

If it was profitable to sell you VHS, companies should be free to do so (and likely would). Profit inherently increases the prosperity and health of a society, regardless of what other externalities are involved. Attempts by regulatory bodies to reduce negative externalities by increasing costs inadvertently just increases negative externalities.

[OngBonga]

The right to buy what you want is as important as the right to say what you want.

There is no "right to buy what you want", this is merely a concept you just made up.

[a500lbgorilla]

I personally loved it.

Ghostbusters? Me too.

[a500lbgorilla]

When someone asks if you're a God, you say "Yes!"

[OngBonga]

If it was profitable to sell you VHS, companies should be free to do so (and likely would). Profit inherently increases the prosperity and health of a society, regardless of what other externalities are involved. Attempts by regulatory bodies to reduce negative externalities by increasing costs inadvertently just increases negative externalities.

I disagree that companies should be free to do so.

VHS is more demanding on resources than DVD. So society has a responsibility to change. There is nothing wrong, in my opinion at least, with regulating what goods can be produced. If something is deemed to be too "dirty" in terms of pollution, and there is a cleaner, cost efficient alternative, then the alternative should be enforced by means of stopping producing the old shit.

I have no idea why anyone feels they have the "right" to buy crappy old light bulbs. We use that word way too casually. No company is under obligation to make these things.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's even better in German

[wufwugy]

There is no "right to buy what you want", this is merely a concept you just made up.

as is the right to say what you want. i was pointing out that which is logically consistent on the topic of freedom rights that everybody believes in.

VHS is more demanding on resources than DVD. So society has a responsibility to change. There is nothing wrong, in my opinion at least, with regulating what goods can be produced. If something is deemed to be too "dirty" in terms of pollution, and there is a cleaner, cost efficient alternative, then the alternative should be enforced by means of stopping producing the old shit.

this is a popular sentiment but completely disagrees with the theory on how to achieve the desired goal. the change you want is change that comes through free behavior. the regulations you desire are what deters that.

I have no idea why anyone feels they have the "right" to buy crappy old light bulbs. We use that word way too casually. No company is under obligation to make these things.

nobody anywhere suggests that a right to buy something means companies are obligated to produce that something.

the absolute best way we know how to stop the types of negative externalities you're talking about is by allowing freedom of consumer choice. there isn't even a second place finisher. the regulatory concepts you're proposing inadvertently increase the negative externalities. ive been trying to explain the economic principles for why this is the case.

[a500lbgorilla]

[OngBonga]

as is the right to say what you want. i was pointing out that which is logically consistent on the topic of freedom rights that everybody believes in.

But I do have the right to say what I want, because noone has the right to stop me from making noises with my vocal chords.

Other people might have the right to then punish me for what I said, but I can literally say what the fuck I like, so long as I am capable of speech.

The idea that the right to buy what you want is equal to the right to say what you want is ridiculous.

You don't have the right to buy what you like. You can't freely buy cocaine, or depleted uranium, or the moon. Hell, you don't even have the right to buy a CD off me on ebay, I have the right to reject your bid.

I can't stop you calling me a wanker though.

[OngBonga]

[guns are better than knives]

This is the scene I played over and over again.

On my VHS.

Yeah it got a bit grainy after a while.

Thank fuck for DVD.

[wufwugy]

But I do have the right to say what I want, because noone has the right to stop me from making noises with my vocal chords.

Other people might have the right to then punish me for what I said, but I can literally say what the fuck I like, so long as I am capable of speech.

The idea that the right to buy what you want is equal to the right to say what you want is ridiculous.

You don't have the right to buy what you like. You can't freely buy cocaine, or depleted uranium, or the moon. Hell, you don't even have the right to buy a CD off me on ebay, I have the right to reject your bid.

I can't stop you calling me a wanker though.

this is why the right to speech is more naturally understood. it is harder to deter somebody. that doesn't change it fundamentally though. somebody else can duct tape you shut then you no longer have that right according to your logic.

the right to buy a dvd doesn't mean obligation for it to be sold.

it is important to understand that your argument that vhs shouldnt be sold because theyre more expensive than other tech is dependent upon an argument that completely contradicts that. there was once a time when dvds were more expensive that vhs. by your logic, they should have been outlawed.

the logic that the current state of costs and benefits should be regulated would create a society where new tech never occurs.

[OngBonga]

Covering my mouth with duct tape is a temporary measure that does little to stop me from saying what I want. I can still say it, it's just no longer audible.

The point is, saying someone doesn't have the right to say what they like is like saying someone doesn't have the right to fart in a lift. You can't stop someone from doing it, all you can do is respond in a way that makes the person think twice about doing it in future.

It's not like that with the "right to buy". There is no "right to buy". If you go into a pub in the UK, the landlord can refuse to serve you for no reason. Which means he can refuse service because he doesn't like your hair, or your girlfriend, or because his football team got hammered and he's in a bad mood.

He can't stop you calling him a wanker though.

[wufwugy]

Covering my mouth with duct tape is a temporary measure that does little to stop me from saying what I want. I can still say it, it's just no longer audible.

The point is, saying someone doesn't have the right to say what they like is like saying someone doesn't have the right to fart in a lift. You can't stop someone from doing it, all you can do is respond in a way that makes the person think twice about doing it in future.

the exact same for consumption choice.

It's not like that with the "right to buy". There is no "right to buy". If you go into a pub in the UK, the landlord can refuse to serve you for no reason. Which means he can refuse service because he doesn't like your hair, or your girlfriend, or because his football team got hammered and he's in a bad mood.

this is not at all what people mean when they say right to consume. under the freedom of commerce concept, producers have the right to not sell.

[spoonitnow]

Same with Star Wars. It's a trilogy.

It was originally written as an ennealogy (nine episodes). Lucas could only originally get the budget to do one film, and he picked the fourth episode because it was the episode that could most easily be made into its own story. It was such a hit that it justified two sequels, which naturally were written from episodes four and five.

The story arc from episodes 1-3 is especially dark and interesting, and it's a real shame that it was turned into a dumbed-down Disney version with the films.

[OngBonga]

So if the producer has the right to not sell, you have no right to buy.

I see you now say the "right to consume". Well noone can take that right away, because eating is consuming.