Does the Net Neutrality rule violate the Bill of Rights?

AssHatZombie said:
My decision is informed as well. Im just not giving you the bibliography.

Please offer a counter argument.
Click to expand...

To what?

Your statements, unsupported by evidence, do not comprise a position.

"Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic....

With the increasing popularity and availability of the Internet, differing opinions arise frequently.

Though they are often expressed via flaming and other forms of argumentation, which consist primarily of assertions, there do exist formalized debating websites, typically in the form of online forums or bulletin boards.

The debate style is interesting, as research and well thought out points and counterpoints are possible because of the obvious lack of time restraints (although practical time restraints usually are in effect, e.g., no more than 5 days between posts, etc.).

Forums are Moderated and welcome online debaters in a friendly format so all may speak their pros and cons. Many people use this to strengthen their points, or drop their weaker opinions...

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate"]Debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame]
 
Mojo said:
To what?

Your statements, unsupported by evidence, do not comprise a position.

"Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic....

With the increasing popularity and availability of the Internet, differing opinions arise frequently.

Though they are often expressed via flaming and other forms of argumentation, which consist primarily of assertions, there do exist formalized debating websites, typically in the form of online forums or bulletin boards.

The debate style is interesting, as research and well thought out points and counterpoints are possible because of the obvious lack of time restraints (although practical time restraints usually are in effect, e.g., no more than 5 days between posts, etc.).

Forums are Moderated and welcome online debaters in a friendly format so all may speak their pros and cons. Many people use this to strengthen their points, or drop their weaker opinions...

Debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

So you still have nothing to counter that fact that big businesses often prefer the ability to hamper the efforts of smaller businesses? Thought not.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So you still have nothing to counter that fact that big businesses often prefer the ability to hamper the efforts of smaller businesses? Thought not.
Click to expand...

Since you made the statement, it falls to you to present an argument.

Persuasive, you're not.

What you're attempting to pass off as a position is in fact an Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance".

You are attempting to argue that something must be true simply because I have not proven it is false.

Or, equivalently, you may argue that something must be false because I haven't proven that it's true.

Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved true.

That is a basic scientific principle.


Examples:

"Of course big businesses often prefer the ability to hamper the efforts of smaller businesses. You haven't proven otherwise."

"Of course protectionism would solve all our problems. Nobody has shown any proof that it wouldn't."

Note that in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of something having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has not occurred.

We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred, however.
 
Mojo said:
Since you made the statement, it falls to you to present an argument.

Persuasive, you're not.

What you're attempting to pass off as a position is in fact an Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance".

You are attempting to argue that something must be true simply because I have not proven it is false.

Or, equivalently, you may argue that something must be false because I haven't proven that it's true.

Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved true.

That is a basic scientific principle.


Examples:

"Of course big businesses often prefer the ability to hamper the efforts of smaller businesses. You haven't proven otherwise."

"Of course protectionism would solve all our problems. Nobody has shown any proof that it wouldn't."

Note that in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of something having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has not occurred.

We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred, however.
Click to expand...

Your longwindedness and bullshit do not serve you well.

Of course large established business is threatened by new businesses. They hire lobbyists to try to make it harder for new businesses. This is why they are against net neutrality.

And of course protectionism would create more jobs here. These are known impacts of protectionist policy. Corporations, being merely profit seeking, dont really care about the country in general, but only about profit, so they prefer the ability to use slave labor overseas, the country be damned.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Your longwindedness and bullshit do not serve you well.

Of course large established business is threatened by new businesses. They hire lobbyists to try to make it harder for new businesses. This is why they are against net neutrality.

And of course protectionism would create more jobs here. These are known impacts of protectionist policy. Corporations, being merely profit seeking, dont really care about the country in general, but only about profit, so they prefer the ability to use slave labor overseas, the country be damned.
Click to expand...

I feared your attention span would be inequal to the task of comprehending what I said. I blame myself.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Succinct enough for you?
 
Mojo said:
Yes, it is. I'm done discussing this with you.
Click to expand...


no it's not. Im arguing that the known effects of protectionism is exactly what are required to mend our economy. The loss of too many jobs due to trade deficit and outsourcing are leading to a downard spiral. Protectionism will stop that dead in it's tracks.

Im not done with you.
 
"Everyone's weighing in on the Federal Communications Commission's vote to approve net neutrality rules on Tuesday. While President Obama and others hailed the move as an important step in preserving open access, the criticism started flowing almost as soon as the vote was announced.


In the Wall Street Journal, columnist John Fund says the vote is a coup by left-leaning lobbyists. He says he counted the citations from the FCC's National Broadband plan and noted there were far fewer nods from "respected think tanks" such as the Brookings Institution, as opposed to "liberal groups" such as Free Press, Public Knowledge, Pew and the New America Foundation."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/12/the_circuit_the_morning_after.html
 
Mojo said:
"Everyone's weighing in on the Federal Communications Commission's vote to approve net neutrality rules on Tuesday. While President Obama and others hailed the move as an important step in preserving open access, the criticism started flowing almost as soon as the vote was announced.


In the Wall Street Journal, columnist John Fund says the vote is a coup by left-leaning lobbyists. He says he counted the citations from the FCC's National Broadband plan and noted there were far fewer nods from "respected think tanks" such as the Brookings Institution, as opposed to "liberal groups" such as Free Press, Public Knowledge, Pew and the New America Foundation."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/12/the_circuit_the_morning_after.html
Click to expand...


Being anti-fascist is not "left leaning".
 
"...rules give the commission the authority to step into disputes about how Internet service providers are managing their networks or initiate their own investigations if they think ISPs are violating its rules.

One important thing to note is that the FCC hasn't actually released the full text of its net neutrality rules yet..."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374638,00.asp

What astonishes me is the number of supposed conservatives on this board who enthusiastically endorsed something they haven't even read yet.

Nationally, many conservatives are opposed, evidenced partly by the GOP commissioner's stance.

Is that kind of like voting for a health care reform bill you haven't read, or condemning a troop surge that hasn't happend yet?
 
More FCC news:

"Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed approving Comcast Corp.'s deal to acquire control of NBC Universal from General Electric Co.

The proposal, circulated Thursday to the other FCC commissioners, still needs full commission approval, which isn't expected until early 2011. It includes several conditions on the deal, requiring that Comcast make NBC and its other Comcast-owned video content available to pay-TV competitors at reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms, according to people close to the FCC's negotiations."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704278404576037502978983500.html
 
Mojo said:
More FCC news:

"Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed approving Comcast Corp.'s deal to acquire control of NBC Universal from General Electric Co.

The proposal, circulated Thursday to the other FCC commissioners, still needs full commission approval, which isn't expected until early 2011. It includes several conditions on the deal, requiring that Comcast make NBC and its other Comcast-owned video content available to pay-TV competitors at reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms, according to people close to the FCC's negotiations."
Click to expand...

I wish a person could sign up for internet download of his favorite cable channels and bypass cable providers completely.....I only need a half dozen channels but most are only included in "premium" packages that make me pay for 100 channels I never watch.....I can already watch ESPN content for free.....
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
Big corporations want to be able to drive up the price and price new business and smaller sites off the internet.

Large entrenched businesses do not like the levelling effect of the internet.
Click to expand...

AssHat, you're sounding more and more like a Socialist. Wanting government intervention. Concerned about the "little guy".

Did you see God? Are you one of those "born again" what-ever-they-are, folks? :confused:

What happened to you, AssHat?
 
Mojo said:
"...rules give the commission the authority to step into disputes about how Internet service providers are managing their networks or initiate their own investigations if they think ISPs are violating its rules.

One important thing to note is that the FCC hasn't actually released the full text of its net neutrality rules yet..."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374638,00.asp

What astonishes me is the number of supposed conservatives on this board who enthusiastically endorsed something they haven't even read yet.

Nationally, many conservatives are opposed, evidenced partly by the GOP commissioner's stance.

Is that kind of like voting for a health care reform bill you haven't read, or condemning a troop surge that hasn't happened yet?
Click to expand...

Regarding the health care bill many people support it not because of the specifics of it but because it is a step in the direction of universal care which almost all people agree it is.

In msg 92 you wrote,
Net-neutrality regulations, formalized by the FCC on Tuesday, aim to fulfill an Obama campaign promise to prevent phone and cable companies from exerting too much control over Internet traffic."
Click to expand...

I suspect those who agree with the Net Neutrality regulation do so for the same reason people agree with the health care bill which is the over-arching ideal each bill represents.
 
apple0154 said:
Regarding the health care bill many people support it not because of the specifics of it but because it is a step in the direction of universal care which almost all people agree it is.

In msg 92 you wrote,

I suspect those who agree with the Net Neutrality regulation do so for the same reason people agree with the health care bill which is the over-arching ideal each bill represents.
Click to expand...

Universal health care is not part of the current health care act. I'm aware that some people think it is a step in that direction. Others think it is socialism. Neither belief is borne out by the facts.

Your suspicions may be correct.

My wonderment remains.
 
Mojo said:
Universal health care is not part of the current health care act. I'm aware that some people think it is a step in that direction. Others think it is socialism. Neither belief is borne out by the facts.

Your suspicions may be correct.

My wonderment remains.
Click to expand...

The way I see it the idea everyone will be compelled to purchase health insurance and those who can't afford it will be subsidized is about as close to universal coverage one can get without actually calling it such.
 
apple0154 said:
The way I see it the idea everyone will be compelled to purchase health insurance and those who can't afford it will be subsidized is about as close to universal coverage one can get without actually calling it such.
Click to expand...


"Single payer" would be a more accurate description than "universal", wouldn't it?

We don't have that.

It looks as though we may not have the health care that Congress passed, either, depending on the outcome of several pending state suits and the determination of the Tea Partiers to stop what they call "Obamacare".

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/show
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top