DC Tom Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 36 minutes ago, westerndecline said: Lol wrong again. Just not interested in the opinion of someone who disagrees with something but hides behind smart ass comments... U offer nothing in conversation And not only do you not add to the conversation, you are explicitly avoiding having a conversation. All you've done is post youtube videos, tell people you don't care what they think, and hide behind smart-ass comments. You don't even meet the incredibly low bar you've set for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerndecline Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 21 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: OK... I'll play... What do you feel is the appropriate response to a new comer whose entire posting history consists of a series of self-aggrandizing youtube ranting hot takes which are short on facts and high on "feels", a malinformed Hugo Chavez-esque attack on the merits of private sector innovation and private ownership all while staking claims of a libertarian belief system, and petulant "lalala I can't hear youuuuuuuu" type responses to critiques of the first two articles? Ad hominem... Try again if u want a thoughtful discussion, or we can continue the 10 year old game , Ur it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Just now, westerndecline said: Ad hominem... Try again if u want a thoughtful discussion, or we can continue the 10 year old game , Ur it What discussion? You done nothing but post youtube videos. You're complaining about people not having a discussion you're not having? What the !@#$ is wrong with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 1 minute ago, westerndecline said: Ad hominem... Try again if u want a thoughtful discussion, or we can continue the 10 year old game , Ur it If someone posts an accurate description of your posting history but you disagree with it, take a moment for a little introspection before declaring it "ad hominem". If you skip taking showers for a week and someone tells you that you stink, it's not a personal attack, it's just the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerndecline Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Just now, Azalin said: If someone posts an accurate description of your posting history but you disagree with it, take a moment for a little introspection before declaring it "ad hominem". If you skip taking showers for a week and someone tells you that you stink, it's not a personal attack, it's just the truth. More ad hominem, u are not discussing ideas. U just disagree with the video ( if u watched it) and are attacking the poster. It's a common error in epistemology Notice u r not talking about net neutrality.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, westerndecline said: Ad hominem... Try again if u want a thoughtful discussion, or we can continue the 10 year old game , Ur it You don't know what an ad hominem attack is. An ad hominem attack is an attack against the character of the person making an argument instead of attacking the argument. However, you seem to think it means "any critique of my posting style which I don't like". In fact, you probably believe I'm making an ad hominem attack right now. That isn't how reasonable people engage in discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 3 minutes ago, westerndecline said: More ad hominem, u are not discussing ideas. U just disagree with the video ( if u watched it) and are attacking the poster. It's a common error in epistemology Notice u r not talking about net neutrality.... But just posting a video isn't an idea or a discussion. Like I wouldn't post a picture of the Mona Lisa and then start bemoaning a lack of discourse in contemporary Florentine Renaissance painting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerndecline Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: You don't know what an ad hominem attack is. An ad hominem attack is an attack against the character of the person making an argument instead of attacking the argument. However, you seem to think it means "any critique of my posting style which I don't like". In fact, you probably believe I'm making an ad hominem attack right now. That isn't how reasonable people engage in discussion. Strawman Now you are creating a false narrative that you didn't attack my character to then discredit why I'm not engaging you in serious discussion lol.... Either watch the video, or don't. Or I'll just begin to ignore u. U r trolling now. Ignore list 4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: But just posting a video isn't an idea or a discussion. Like I wouldn't post a picture of the Mona Lisa and then start bemoaning a lack of discourse in contemporary Florentine Renaissance painting. I disagree with your comparison.... If someone posted a video with an obvious title on the content. I'd either ignore it, or offer why I agree or disagree with the content. Now we are talking about the delivery rather than content... It's a waste of time. If u don't like it, then just ignore Otherwise I'm not sure what u r doing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 7 minutes ago, westerndecline said: I disagree with your comparison.... If someone posted a video with an obvious title on the content. I'd either ignore it, or offer why I agree or disagree with the content. Now we are talking about the delivery rather than content... It's a waste of time. If u don't like it, then just ignore Otherwise I'm not sure what u r doing Displaying content effectively, with the aim of generating conversation, is all about delivery. I'm pretty sure if you had posted a summary of the videos and a primer on your position you'd be getting a better response. And you must know that 'if u don't like it, then just ignore' is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 The obvious needs to be stated. You're an idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luka Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 What in the !@#$ is going on in here? My simple explanation for the simpletons is this. Look at the history of the FCC. I don't know how many millenials watch Family Guy, but the show was removed from the air because they made an episode about Peter needing a Jewish accountant. By the FCC. The FCC is well known for it's censorship of TV and radio, handing out fines, penalties and essentially deciding what you can and can not see and hear on TV and radio. What on earth makes you think that wasn't the intention here? Not only that, but to ensure that the net remains "neutral" they would be MONITORING ALL TRAFFIC and could easily funnel said traffic directly into their other popular arm of oppression, the NSA. You have a much better chance of convincing corporations with your wallet. Your vote is meaningless. Hence the reason the free market is the best market. For the record, libertarians are about small federal government, supporting individual freedom and the free market. Just for those of you who like to call yourselves libertarian but actually have not a !@#$ing clue what it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 14 minutes ago, westerndecline said: Strawman Now you are creating a false narrative that you didn't attack my character to then discredit why I'm not engaging you in serious discussion lol.... Either watch the video, or don't. Or I'll just begin to ignore u. U r trolling now. Ignore list No one is creating a false narrative. No one attacked your character. Your posting style, and responses to critiques of your posting style, are what has been attacked. And I'm not interested in having a serious discussion with you as you haven't demonstrated the value of having a serious discussion with. That's the entire point I'm trying to make: If your goal is to have a conversation, perhaps you should stop acting like an !@#$, and begin behaving like a person who wants to have a conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 25 minutes ago, westerndecline said: Strawman Now you are creating a false narrative that you didn't attack my character to then discredit why I'm not engaging you in serious discussion lol.... Either watch the video, or don't. Or I'll just begin to ignore u. U r trolling now. Ignore list I disagree with your comparison.... If someone posted a video with an obvious title on the content. I'd either ignore it, or offer why I agree or disagree with the content. Now we are talking about the delivery rather than content... It's a waste of time. If u don't like it, then just ignore Otherwise I'm not sure what u r doing Nobody attacked your character, because you have none. Stop being a schmuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 so we're getting !@#$ed by this no matter what so who is giving me the kandycoated predicted results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerndecline Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Luka said: What in the !@#$ is going on in here? My simple explanation for the simpletons is this. Look at the history of the FCC. I don't know how many millenials watch Family Guy, but the show was removed from the air because they made an episode about Peter needing a Jewish accountant. By the FCC. The FCC is well known for it's censorship of TV and radio, handing out fines, penalties and essentially deciding what you can and can not see and hear on TV and radio. What on earth makes you think that wasn't the intention here? Not only that, but to ensure that the net remains "neutral" they would be MONITORING ALL TRAFFIC and could easily funnel said traffic directly into their other popular arm of oppression, the NSA. You have a much better chance of convincing corporations with your wallet. Your vote is meaningless. Hence the reason the free market is the best market. For the record, libertarians are about small federal government, supporting individual freedom and the free market. Just for those of you who like to call yourselves libertarian but actually have not a !@#$ing clue what it means. I disagree our vote is meaningless... I just think most people are retarded or can be bought ...( George Carlin fan here) " the people suck" It's not a secret that money has captured government in many ways. I'm of the opinion that the internet is like the utility companies or interstate highway .... It's a public welfare issue. U start charging for content based on corporations bottom line the internet willbe like CNN and the new York times ... As for the fcc. Speech has always been decided in the courts. If u want law interpreted by corporations instead of elected representatives, I don't think you understand what a libertarian is. What you are advocating is basically fascism on the right Edited December 1, 2017 by westerndecline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luka Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, row_33 said: so we're getting !@#$ed by this no matter what so who is giving me the kandycoated predicted results? Best case scenario, the government takes a step back, we go through some aches and pains while competition in the ISP market grows and then all it takes is one ISP to offer access to everything for one flat fee. Think cell phone industry prior to carriers like T-Mobile offering unlimited data and minutes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 30 minutes ago, Luka said: What in the !@#$ is going on in here? My simple explanation for the simpletons is this. Look at the history of the FCC. I don't know how many millenials watch Family Guy, but the show was removed from the air because they made an episode about Peter needing a Jewish accountant. By the FCC. The FCC is well known for it's censorship of TV and radio, handing out fines, penalties and essentially deciding what you can and can not see and hear on TV and radio. What on earth makes you think that wasn't the intention here? Not only that, but to ensure that the net remains "neutral" they would be MONITORING ALL TRAFFIC and could easily funnel said traffic directly into their other popular arm of oppression, the NSA. You have a much better chance of convincing corporations with your wallet. Your vote is meaningless. Hence the reason the free market is the best market. For the record, libertarians are about small federal government, supporting individual freedom and the free market. Just for those of you who like to call yourselves libertarian but actually have not a !@#$ing clue what it means. The intention of the currently proposed rules is to: GET THE FCC OUT OF REGULATING THE INTERNET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerndecline Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Luka said: Best case scenario, the government takes a step back, we go through some aches and pains while competition in the ISP market grows and then all it takes is one ISP to offer access to everything for one flat fee. Think cell phone industry prior to carriers like T-Mobile offering unlimited data and minutes. I am open to this idea, like a two year trial period.... I am for less government where possible. Markets react in unpredictable fashion tho obviously. Edited December 1, 2017 by westerndecline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luka Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 19 minutes ago, GG said: The intention of the currently proposed rules is to: GET THE FCC OUT OF REGULATING THE INTERNET. The FCC has proposed that the FCC should not regulate the internet? Or are you saying the new rules? Either way the government should not be involved in regulating the internet. It's the one bastion of freedom of speech. It's the same reason other countries keep a tight grip on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 21 minutes ago, Luka said: Think cell phone industry prior to carriers like T-Mobile offering unlimited data and minutes. Wireless is where all this is going. Trust me, telecom is dying to get away from physical connectivity in first/last mile delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts