Net Neutrality... No, really it will be faster and cheaper... Says the government.

abandonconflict · Feb 12, 2015

NLXSK1 said:
The government has tried to make it illegal to obtain incandescent light bulbs in the USA. And you call that progress?

I treat you like an adult for a couple posts and you respond with dishonest distortion. No you fucking mouthbreather. Just like your inability to comprehend any part of what is going on with net neutrality, my argument went way over your head. I don't call that progress, I criticize it by calling it capitalism, except that isn't what I said either. I described planned obsolescence and you went out of your way to avoid understanding it.

so how many guys did you service last night for $20 a pop?

abandonconflict · Feb 12, 2015

NLXSK1 said:
So what? Are you going to demand the government force companies to skip over product development now? Are they somehow going to be forced to provide newer and better products cheaper??

No, idiot. I'm demonstrating with facts that it is not profitable for corporations to give consumers what they want.

abandonconflict · Feb 12, 2015

NLXSK1 said:
Were you able to obtain these features by buying another phone? Does the Iphone have a monopoly on the market? Do you have to pay a fine if you dont have an i-phone like healthcare? Will Apple come and confiscate your property if you dont send them a yearly tithe?

not one of these addresses what we're debating, which is the simple fact that profit is often contrary to the interests of the consumer

ginwilly · Feb 12, 2015

abandonconflict said:
No, idiot. I'm demonstrating with facts that it is not profitable for corporations to give consumers what they want.

Do you really believe this or did you read it on a bumper sticker?

Rob Roy · Feb 12, 2015

abandonconflict said:
I treat you like an adult for a couple posts and you respond with dishonest distortion. No you fucking mouthbreather. Just like your inability to comprehend any part of what is going on with net neutrality, my argument went way over your head. I don't call that progress, I criticize it by calling it capitalism, except that isn't what I said either. I described planned obsolescence and you went out of your way to avoid understanding it.

so how many guys did you service last night for $20 a pop?

Even if he were servicing people in the way you rudely insinuate, it would be better than being a person that exists thru coercive funding, rather than voluntary charity...like you.

A prostitute and a willing customer make a consensual agreement. People that don't make consensual agreements for sex, are engaging in rape aren't they?

Inb4 you can claim inb4 rape.

Rob Roy · Feb 12, 2015

abandonconflict said:
No, idiot. I'm demonstrating with facts that it is not profitable for corporations to give consumers what they want.

A corporation in the present paradigm is a construct of a coercive government isn't it? You advocate for a coercive system.

Do you ever get dizzy chasing your own tail around in the basement? Is that how you broke the ninja turtle lamp?

abandonconflict · Feb 12, 2015

just keep worshipping the invisible hand of adam smith...

Rob Roy said:
A corporation in the present paradigm is a construct of a coercive government isn't it?

All capitalism is.

Rob Roy · Feb 12, 2015

abandonconflict said:
just keep worshipping the invisible hand of adam smith...

All capitalism is.

Please describe how you think people should interact when engaging in trade.

I think the particular players involved in a given interaction should set the terms as long as there is no duress / initiated force involved.

Do you agree or do you think an external party should decide what their agreements are?

abandonconflict · Feb 12, 2015

Rob Roy said:
I think the particular players involved in a given interaction should set the terms as long as there is no duress / initiated force involved.

this is contrary to private ownership of resources and economic infrastructure.

ginwilly · Feb 12, 2015

abandonconflict said:
just keep worshipping the invisible hand of adam smith...

All capitalism is.

Corporation is a construct of government.

An example of capitalism is one cave man trading a skin to another caveman for a hind quarter of meat, the capital being skin and meat. This occurred naturally before the concept of government was even thought of.

Government bastardized that transaction and at the very minimum now demands a piece of that transaction, at worst it will dictate the terms of that transaction.

abandonconflict · Feb 12, 2015

ginwilly said:
An example of capitalism is one cave man trading a skin to another caveman for a hind quarter of meat

get yourself a dictionary

londonfog · Feb 12, 2015

abandonconflict said:
No, idiot. I'm demonstrating with facts that it is not profitable for corporations to give consumers what they want.

Right I would like a product that could last forever...never going to happen

abandonconflict · Feb 12, 2015

londonfog said:
Right I would like a product that could last forever...never going to happen

it is entirely possible to build things that last a very long time with current technology.

ginwilly · Feb 12, 2015

abandonconflict said:
get yourself a dictionary

LOL, seems you would avoid that subject mister can't read a definition.

What is capital?

londonfog · Feb 12, 2015

abandonconflict said:
it is entirely possible to build things that last a very long time with current technology.

yes it is, but that would not be profitable for them. They need you to keep buying and buying

abandonconflict · Feb 12, 2015

ginwilly said:
LOL, seems you would avoid that subject mister can't read a definition.

capitalism is defined as an economic system in which infrastructure and resources are privately owned. what you described is something else, which demonstrates a lack of grasp of what you're talking about.

abandonconflict · Feb 12, 2015

londonfog said:
yes it is, but that would not be profitable for them. They need you to keep buying and buying

this simple concept is lost on the pawlbots

NoDrama · Feb 12, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Net neutrality isn't proposing cheaper costs..

It's about access to content, not faster speeds. You and NoDrama might be reading from the same talking points..

Do you like the internet the way it is? Would you prefer to pay more to reach less popular sites? No, right? Then you support net neutrality

I like how we have our own opinions, yet others say we are only parroting the GOP. Its really childish, and oh so adorable.
I don't know how I can parrot someone else's opinion when I haven't heard them or read them.

You don't need 322 pages of lawyerspeak to make all data neutral. You barely need two sentences. the other 321.9 pages are government giving themselves the power to regulate something we all use, ultimately making government the control crux. Government can and does regulate businesses out of profit while granting favor over other companies for their donations. Right now the internet is not wholly corrupted, as soon as big daddy takes over it will cease to be a free framework of individuals.

abandonconflict · Feb 12, 2015

NoDrama said:
the other 321.9 pages are government giving themselves the power to regulate something we all use

citation required

ginwilly · Feb 12, 2015

abandonconflict said:
capitalism is defined as an economic system in which infrastructure and resources are privately owned. what you described is something else, which demonstrates a lack of grasp of what you're talking about.

What is capital?

Who owned the fur and meat? was it privately owned?

Net Neutrality... No, really it will be faster and cheaper... Says the government.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads