Conservatism a confirmed brain illness?

[Fake Boris]

Why would we want the government to regulate highways?

[regexcellent]

Because it owns the ****ing highways, unlike the network cables.

[Sava]

Oerdin, this is what Reg does for a living, you should probably listen to him.

reg's technical "expertise" (as what, an entry level employee? lol) doesn't make him not wrong about net neutrality

and how the **** did you guys get to arguing about this anyways?

[Sava]

btw, this is better than Kuci's: "I"M AN ACTUARY"

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Right, because that's SO MUCH BETTER. FFS.

Yes, I'd rather have the EPA than die of a heart attack from breathing polluted air.

[Sava]

Ted Cruz himself is an extremely strong argument against net neutrality. Would you want someone like Ted Cruz regulating the internet? No? How about Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? No? How about Eric Cantor? Still no? Well guess what? Those are your choices. Don't like them? Don't support the government regulating the internet.

why do conservatives hate representative democracy?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

why do conservatives hate representative democracy?

Because undesirables poor people can vote.

[Sava]

also, i'm not too keen on the idea that "all government is bad" just because the people elected to office who say such things are bad

the solution is to vote those people out

and to point and laugh at anyone who parrots their idiocy

[Sava]

such behavior isn't a natural state of thinking

which is why I'm confident conservatism will fade away... like other idiotic and morally bankrupt ideologies

[Sava]

nobody is born a conservative

it's taught

like racism

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Hunter-gatherer societies generally have a high level of social equality and they have more leisure time than modern societies. Conservatism is unnatural.

[Sava]

In nature, it's at least a self-correcting cycle. Organisms that embrace hyper-individuality at the expense of cooperation don't survive.

It's just a bit annoying that modern conservatism has been co-opted by charlatans seeking to support their extravagant lifestyle. They're panhandlers looking for a free ride from idiots who don't have a better way to spend their money instead of donating it to morons.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The whole net neutrality debate is just two extremes shouting at each other. Yes, not having companies discriminate against websites based on their own side deals is a good. But also, having content providers pay for using an incredibly high amount of bandwith (a la Netflix) is also a good. Of course the first thing (well one of the first things) that would happen after net neutrality would be consumer data caps - because someone has to pay for increased bandwith usage. On the other hand, maybe we can find a middle way between the two extremes - to allow for prioritizing data packets when needed and also to prevent company gouging (of course with fiber ISPs expanding, it all may be a moot point in 10-20 years).

[Sava]

The whole net neutrality debate is just two extremes shouting at each other.

well... no

false equivalency alert

the "debate" of net neutrality involves companies (and the politicians they've bought) wanting to charge us more money for an inferior service

versus almost everyone else... who thinks that's a bad idea

[Imran Siddiqui]

well... no

false equivalency alert

the "debate" of net neutrality involves companies (and the politicians they've bought) wanting to charge us more money for an inferior service

versus almost everyone else... who thinks that's a bad idea

Verses the folks who want something for cheap/free . The cable companies built all these cables. Why shouldn't they charge for people who want to use those cables? Especially folks they are in competition with using their infrastructure?