Re:FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote
by crazy1van on Thursday February 26, 2015 @03:52PM
(#9115405)
> I find all of your arguments to be talking points.
Please define "talking points"... I find it often means an often repeated argument that my side doesn't agree with.
Re:FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote
by Karunamon on Thursday February 26, 2015 @04:29PM
(#9115635)
The same arguments being repeated again and again, usually by multiple different people (almost as if the arguments have been disseminated from the same source), with any rebuttals or addressing of those points by people opposing the central point being ignored or not addressed in good faith.
See upthread for an example of this.
Re:FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote
by crazy1van on Thursday February 26, 2015 @07:58PM
(#9116595)
Repeated argument I don't agree with...talking point.
Repeated argument I do agree with...consensus.
[dead]
Re:FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote
by droopybuns on Thursday February 26, 2015 @08:01PM
(#9116606)
What is the point of this then?
Part of the value of hackernews is that you get informed people presenting ideas that you might not otherwise have considered. Attacking someone because they violate orthodoxy is something that is lampooned in this comic. YOU'RE THE GUY IN THE COMIC! http://xkcd.com/386/
I find all of your arguments to be talking points. How can we possibly have a reasonable dialog? I have just insulted you by explicitly stating that you are insincere in your position.
This is how you're treating everyone who disagrees with you. It is utterly unproductive. You are executing a Denial of Service attack on any reasonable dialog.