Now we're one step closer into arguing content rights over entitlements. This topic cannot be discussed without it getting political.
Not if we go beyond talking who owns the Marvel characters, which I tried to keep it limited to.
It is ideology. I believe I proved that. Now can we get back to talking about a Fantastic Four movie directed by Stephan Spielburg and forget about who is unwilling to do their research in finding an alternative provider?
You're the one calling people entitled and claiming it's about politics. You're the one saying passive aggressive bullshit and making untrue claims about internet history and how widespread true competition in internet providers. If you don't like the way this conversation is going, you are free to not come into this thread.
No, I was pointing out how it is a political issue and using the extremist view to illustrate that. I was proving that if one person held one political view they would assume people opposing them were entitled. I wasn't directly accusing anyone. Passive aggressive fine, better than dogpiling on the unpopular opinion. Which it is just opinion.
Again it is political and I was proving that by pointing out the arguments used in opposition. I just wanted to talk about the Marvel characters and look back I didn't dismiss anyone as ignorant or flippantly call someone stupid like the person I reported. No sir, I remained civil. I am still civil. I am not calling people names or losing my temper. I am defending my position and my points are being dismissed as inferior to the opinions of others.
Again, all of the anti-Comcast claims are based on speculation. Things that cannot be proven
True or false, if you have Comcast in your neighborhood you have access to Dish Network or Direct TV as an alternative for TV?
Maybe you are not willing to switch from Comcast to Dish or DirecTV but you certain do have the choice.
I used the word entitled because it fits. The argument is based on a feeling people are automatically owed faster internet, and all those things Oohboy mentioned, using words like standard practice, status quo, etc., In their view having to pay extra for those services is deemed unacceptable and that is a political ideology. There is even a word for it. I chose the least offensive term I could think of.
There are two political views on this subject. One that opposes government interference and one that expects it. I won't make assumptions about your political views but if you deny those are political arguments then you are in denial.
If someone doesn't like Comcast they certainly do, in 100 percent of the cases, have access to an alternative. Just because that person doesn't like the alternative doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus the negative term was used. Why? Okay I guess I will spell it out.
If you live in City A where Comcast offers 100 meg speeds of internet and their competition is Hughs Net offering 50 meg speeds and your argument is I shouldn't have to choose between paying more money for the faster speed, that is an entitlement attitude meaning they believe they are entitled to faster internet but not required to pay extra for it. I am not talking about welfare or healthcare here, we are talking about a belief that internet is a "basic right" or something (correct me if I am wrong that is the way it comes off to me) if that is not the argument, then what is the issue?
Again, just because you do not think Dish or DirecTV count as true alternatives doesn't change the fact they exist and offer a comparable service. Do you sometimes have to pay extra for certain channels? Okay, but so?
If you want HBO you have to pay extra for it. There was a time when you had to pay extra for the Disney channel and Discovery too. So technology evolved. Now we have access to more channels, more internet, more services and some people make it sound like the provider of their choice is their only option.
You do know you could get internet from other providers and cut the cord too right? There is YouTube, there is IPTV, Playstation has an option, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, those are alternatives to Comcast. (Except for their stake in Hulu)
Why should I have to leave? I was the one who was told my opinion isn't valid and attacked for daring to express an opposing opinion.
You are flat wrong. I did not insult anyone, I was insulted and as typical the same gang of bullies jumped on me and I knew it would happen that is why I edited my first post, that is why *I* stayed out of the politics until it was forced on me with not one, not two, but four different posters, the moderator whose job is to enforce the rules being one of them.
The very fact someone views it differently proves it is a divisive and controversial political argument. The rule wasn't broken by me, I DEFENDED my political views which I shouldn't have had to do the offending post should have been deleted and my post dodging the politics shouldn't have been attacked with accusations my opinion doesn't matter.
I, am sorry, for getting defensive. But knowing the history and everything else, I would expect that you would have agreed it is a political matter because it gets discussed as a political topic and there is this
The impact can be large enough to concern foreign interests and governments in deciding whether they are willing to shape their bit of the internet according to this experiment.That is a political statement. Just because you agree with it and dismiss anyone whose opinion is different doesn't make it less of a political statement.
Let me demonstrate how.
One ideology, thinks the United States, a sovereign world super power, has some underlying interest in placating foreign powers,The other ideology believes the Unite States, as a sovereign world super power, has no obligation to take world affairs into consideration.
I didn't state which ideology I subscribe to. I merely pointed out it is, in fact, political based. This isn't the same as arguing should Nintendo release a new F Zero or is the N64 Mini a good idea or not, those are politically neutral discussion, discussing corporate mergers then getting into debates over the merits, or lack thereof, of a government policy that was, by some, politicized.
It's not the same as saying, anyone who subscribes to ideology A is a, insert insult here, I didn't do that, *I* didn't, initially, dismiss anyone's opinion.
Again, is in't it bad form to tell the person with the unpopular opinion they should leave instead of saying, listen folks this person was right to express their concerns and maybe we should respect that instead of further antagonizing.
Instead you point out my fault and dismiss the two people who dismissed me. Business as usual. Again, I get it, they are your friends you tend to side with them and only enforce the rules when someone blows up. I am not going to be bullied into exploding. I am not going to be baited into throwing insults or using harsh language.
What I am going to do is say in this case, all I did was have an unpopular opinion, defended it and was told my opinions don't matter.
Topic: Disney bought Fox: Fox Shareholders Agreed to $71B Disney Buyout!! (Read 68230 times)
