Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If someone wants to pay for more bandwidth no one should tell them they can't. This is like teaching to the bottom of the class so no one is left behind. What happens is EVERYONE is left behind.
I'm sorry, you don't understand something called "reasoning".
I understand it perfectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
YOU are required to prove that monopolies are not created by government. Your incorrect assumptions are myriad, and they make everything you argue incorrect.
I'm not required to do anything. You simply, for about the 10,000th time, made an assertion that you backed with nothing at all, just your say-so. If I wanted to go around disproving all the things you say that are absolutely false I would do nothing but and I would be giving you credibility you decidedly do not deserve and have not earned. Your assertions are proof of nothing more than you hold those opinions, and those opinions mean nothing at all to me. I already know you're wrong about everything. I already know you deem it beneath you to actually prove your points using any kind of respectable, independent source. I already know that you have insisted that you have the authority to define terms which already have definitions in a way suitable to yourself. I do not accept those terms, I do not accept your definitions. I'm not terribly interested in how you want to toe the party line on this issue. In this case, you have chosen to redefine what constitutes a "free market" even though virtually every economist on the face of the earth disagrees with your insistence that it doesn't involve the government (on the contrary, government is a necessary component to a free market, or else consumers would have no confidence in it at all--Smith and other early capitalist economists went to great lengths to explain why confidence in the market was absolutely necessary for the system to flourish and government had to regulate it properly to ensure confidence). Considering that all of our arguments pivot on your insistence that you get to define already defined terms however you want, you're just wasting your time. I do not and will never accept your own personal definitions of things.
The way things work is that you agree to it, and then the bureaucracy keeps changing the regulations and constantly redefining what "neutrality" is, until you reach a point where "neutrality" was only subterfuge in a gambit for government to hinder Free Speech/Free Press.
I'm not required to do anything. You simply, for about the 10,000th time, made an assertion that you backed with nothing at all, just your say-so.
No, it was your assertion that monopolies exist without government intervention in the markets.
YOU have to prove that falsehood.
Quote:
If I wanted to go around disproving all the things you say that are absolutely false I would do nothing but and I would be giving you credibility you decidedly do not deserve and have not earned.
No, YOU have to prove the premises behind all the false statements you make.
Quote:
Your assertions are proof of nothing more than you hold those opinions, and those opinions mean nothing at all to me.
My only assertion is that you're wrong. You are the one who has to prove that false is true, reality is not true, etc.
Quote:
I already know you're wrong about everything. I already know you deem it beneath you to actually prove your points using any kind of respectable, independent source.
No, you are engaging in repeated, pervasive fallacies.
YOU are not an authority, nor is anyone you ever cite.
Quote:
I already know that you have insisted that you have the authority to define terms which already have definitions in a way suitable to yourself.
You "know" no such thing. You cannot "know" what is not true, since something, by definition, must be true for it be "known". Otherwise, it is imagined.
Quote:
I do not accept those terms, I do not accept your definitions. I'm not terribly interested in how you want to toe the party line on this issue.
I'm sorry, what 'party' and what 'line'?
Again, you argue things that are false, completely so.
Quote:
In this case, you have chosen to redefine what constitutes a "free market" even though virtually every economist on the face of the earth disagrees with your insistence that it doesn't involve the government (on the contrary, government is a necessary component to a free market, or else consumers would have no confidence in it at all--Smith and other early capitalist economists went to great lengths to explain why confidence in the market was absolutely necessary for the system to flourish and government had to regulate it properly to ensure confidence).
LOL! There's so much self contradiction in your own statement it's hard to even take you seriously.
Quote:
Considering that all of our arguments pivot on your insistence that you get to define already defined terms however you want, you're just wasting your time. I do not and will never accept your own personal definitions of things.
No, our arguments pivot on you speaking fallacious nonsense that defies reality, the meaning of the language, and any logic or reasoning whatsoever.
By keeping it neutral, all websites have an equal chance at being viewed, sent to the viewer's home at an equal amount of time as any other website.
By not keeping it neutral, some websites could pay for faster service to a viewer and therefore throttle (slow down) the speed of other websites.
An analogy would be:
Independent gas stations are allowed to set up a gas station anywhere and when they do finally make their gas stations, the large corporate gas stations are allowed to build their gas stations bigger and better and right in front of the independent gas stations thus getting all the independent gas station's customers (they wouldn't see the indie gas stations.)
Google, Inc. has already demolished this 'neutrality' by placing paid ads above all else and censoring what it considers 'unpopular' or legally obtuse sites within their monolithic search engine. If you can find that huge gas station its competitors have been literally wiped off of Google Maps.
Have you noticed the ads splashed all over here? Good, that is the point to this re-tooled military application called the "WWW". That and surveillance, that and keeping people occupied rather than thoughtful and... proactive? It is quite a success. Everyone believes they are participating and that's what matters.
Google, Inc. has already demolished this 'neutrality' by placing paid ads above all else and censoring what it considers 'unpopular' or legally obtuse sites within their monolithic search engine. If you can find that huge gas station its competitors have been literally wiped off of Google Maps.
Have you noticed the ads splashed all over here? Good, that is the point to this re-tooled military application called the "WWW". That and surveillance, that and keeping people occupied rather than thoughtful and... proactive? It is quite a success. Everyone believes they are participating and that's what matters.
I'm sorry... Google is free to operate its search engine any way it wishes. And to sell advertising space.. any way it wishes.
Your argument that Google should not be free to own and operate the search engine it owns, is, frankly, absurd.
No, it was your assertion that monopolies exist without government intervention in the markets.
YOU have to prove that falsehood.
No, I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
No, YOU have to prove the premises behind all the false statements you make.
No, I don't. Already explained and ignored by you (shocking!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
My only assertion is that you're wrong. You are the one who has to prove that false is true, reality is not true, etc.
Now you're just being modest, you make wrong assertions about all kinds of things. In another thread, you've asserted that republicanism and democracy are exclusive concepts, they're not, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a political scientist who agrees with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
No, you are engaging in repeated, pervasive fallacies.
YOU are not an authority, nor is anyone you ever cite.
lol
On the contrary, I cite actual authorities, and when it comes to defining terms, the authorities are always > you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
You "know" no such thing. You cannot "know" what is not true, since something, by definition, must be true for it be "known". Otherwise, it is imagined.
Your posts are evidence that it's definitely not my imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
I'm sorry, what 'party' and what 'line'?
Again, you argue things that are false, completely so.
Again, your say-so as evidence. Get someone respectable to back you up, ANYONE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
LOL! There's so much self contradiction in your own statement it's hard to even take you seriously.
No, our arguments pivot on you speaking fallacious nonsense that defies reality, the meaning of the language, and any logic or reasoning whatsoever.
Your entire response simply proved my point. You don't get to define words however you want them to be just to suit your argument. It's really no more complicated than that and yet, you fail to grasp such a remarkably simple concept. Phrases like "free market" and words like "democracy" already have long-established, accepted definitions within their respective academic spheres. And yet, you consistently choose to ignore them and insist I and everyone else here accept your own personal definitions for these terms, claiming that you're being reasonable all while refusing to show precisely how you reasoned your way to those new definitions (and give us the opportunity to dispute your 'reasoning') or why anyone should accept you as an authority over people who actually seem to know what they're talking about.
Now you're just being modest, you make wrong assertions about all kinds of things. In another thread, you've asserted that republicanism and democracy are exclusive concepts, they're not, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a political scientist who agrees with you.
I made no such assertion.
I said we are not a democracy.
I said the founders created a republic that was NOT a democracy.
It is NOT << I >> who twists meanings. It is YOU.
Direct from the dictionary:
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
We have no such thing AT ALL.
Our representatives DO NOT HAVE SUPREME POWER.
The people do, but they do not directly exercise said powers.
No, I don't. Already explained and ignored by you (shocking!).
No, your assertions are not explanations.
lol
Quote:
On the contrary, I cite actual authorities, and when it comes to defining terms, the authorities are always > you.
Go back and learn what the argument from authority fallacy is. Read it and understand you do it with endless repetition, even arguing, as you do above, that your "authority" (random quote) proves you right.
Not so. Argue it yourself, make a REAL argument and you'll start noticing you can't even MAKE ONE, because nothing you believe is ever reasoned or true.
Quote:
Again, your say-so as evidence. Get someone respectable to back you up, ANYONE.
I do not engage in the appeal to authority fallacy. Nor will I ever accept your fallacies as true.
Quote:
Your entire response simply proved my point. You don't get to define words however you want them to be just to suit your argument. It's really no more complicated than that and yet, you fail to grasp such a remarkably simple concept. Phrases like "free market" and words like "democracy" already have long-established, accepted definitions within their respective academic spheres.
No, they have perversions among your favorite propagandists you like to pretend are authorities. Try thinking for yourself for a while and then they'll seem rather stupid.
Quote:
And yet, you consistently choose to ignore them and insist I and everyone else here accept your own personal definitions for these terms, claiming that you're being reasonable all while refusing to show precisely how you reasoned your way to those new definitions (and give us the opportunity to dispute your 'reasoning') or why anyone should accept you as an authority over people who actually seem to know what they're talking about.
LOL! All we have to do is see whom you believe to know that neither you nor they know what they're talking about.
I said the founders created a republic that was NOT a democracy.
It is NOT << I >> who twists meanings. It is YOU.
Direct from the dictionary:
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
We have no such thing AT ALL.
Our representatives DO NOT HAVE SUPREME POWER.
The people do, but they do not directly exercise said powers.
Ergo, we are NOT a Democracy. Period.
Our constitutional republic is a type of democracy. Just because a constitutional republic is not a direct, or pure democracy, does not mean it isn't a democracy.
Britain's Constitutional Monarchy is a type of democracy.
The French Republic is a type of democracy.
The Swiss Federal Republic is a type of democracy.
Norway's Constitutional Monarchy is rated by the Economist as the best democracy in the world (US ranked 16th, I'll let them know you say that a republic is not a democratic form of government even though the whole of political science doesn't agree with that).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
