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.
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?
(Actually, the winner is bittorrent...)
Sincerely, Guy who watched 0% of content in HD 5 years ago, and watches 95% of content in HD now.