Net Neutrality Popup

[brabbit2222]

---

Members do not see this ad.

1) You are wealthy by world standards.
2) By virtue of being born to a womb in America or the "First World", you did in fact win the lottery.
3) GED is a higher standard of education than people can hope to achieve in many parts of the world.

The inability of libertarians to realize how lucky and blessed they truly are is part of the reason why they can continue to indulge in their selfish ideology, which revolves around the false belief that they themselves, with their own two hands, achieved everything they did.



Huh?



I know so many it's not even funny.



Agreed.

It honestly baffles me how people like you go through so much schooling and education and still have no idea how the world works. Please waste your own money on the projects you consider important and leave mine to me.

 

[Angry Birds]

It honestly baffles me how people like you go through so much schooling and education and still have no idea how the world works. Please waste your own money on the projects you consider important and leave mine to me.

It's precisely because of my long years of education--which includes a robust humanities education to supplement my (technician-like) medical education--that I don't subscribe to a teenager ideology of Atlas Shrugs. In fact, almost all the faculty of the top-tier schools seem to be liberal to me. I think education, academia, and knowledge makes one lean that way.

 

[GeneralVeers]

I am lucky (born in Canada). By no means do I feel guilty for random circumstance. Feeling guilty for other, less fortunates in the world is what is bringing down Western civilization. Look at Germany, Sweden, and UK for examples.

I don't really care enough about net neutrality one way or the other to have strong feelings. I do know that most of the equipment that manages the bandwidth is installed, paid for, and maintained by private entities. The government should never tell private entities how they can use their own private property. It is a very consistently Libertarian opinion!

 

[deleted109597]

1) You are wealthy by world standards.
2) By virtue of being born to a womb in America or the "First World", you did in fact win the lottery.
3) GED is a higher standard of education than people can hope to achieve in many parts of the world.
4) You have a high-paying job and can therefore afford your house. I don't understand the point about quitting your work. The whole point was that, as a physician in the United States, you are considered wealthy by world standards. This presupposes that you are working. Work is itself a blessing.

I get that I have it better than most other people. But the poorest American is still wealthier than something like 90% of the world, so let's use some sort of standard here. I'm not comparing myself to the favelas, I'm comparing myself to the wealthy in the United States. Wealthy people don't work. Their money works for them. I have to work. Therefore I'm upper middle class. I'm also not an idiot. Instead of leasing new cars, I'm still driving around the 10 year old vehicle I bought in medical school. I save money instead of spending it.
Of note, I do spend time overseas every year teaching. But you'll probably turn around and tell me that's white privilege too.

The inability of libertarians to realize how lucky and blessed they truly are is part of the reason why they can continue to indulge in their selfish ideology, which revolves around the false belief that they themselves, with their own two hands, achieved everything they did.

I'm waiting to see what was handed to me. I had to work full time in college to pay for my schooling. I didn't get into medical school or residency the first time. While I may have been lucky, I certainly haven't had things given to me, no matter how much of a silver spoon you think my "highest educated parents in the world with their GED" had in my mouth.

Huh?

Segregation was government enforced. Did you forget that?

I know so many it's not even funny.

Guess I'll have to take your word for it.

 

[Angry Birds]

I am lucky (born in Canada). By no means do I feel guilty for random circumstance. Feeling guilty for other, less fortunates in the world is what is bringing down Western civilization. Look at Germany, Sweden, and UK for examples.

First, I did not say that you should feel guilty. Rather, I only stated that we ought to feel blessed and thereby acknowledge those less fortunate than us. There is a huge difference.

Secondly, your racist-laden argument has a long precedence in history:

It's the Jews. It's the Irish. It's the blacks. It's the Mexicans. It's the Arabs. It's the Muslims. It's the refugees.

It's xenophobia. You are a xenophobe. Do you, by the way, support Richard Spencer? He seems to be your guy.

I get that I have it better than most other people. But the poorest American is still wealthier than something like 90% of the world, so let's use some sort of standard here. I'm not comparing myself to the favelas, I'm comparing myself to the wealthy in the United States. Wealthy people don't work. Their money works for them. I have to work. Therefore I'm upper middle class. I'm also not an idiot. Instead of leasing new cars, I'm still driving around the 10 year old vehicle I bought in medical school. I save money instead of spending it.

It's interesting. Most people (70% in fact) consider themselves middle class, or upper middle class.

Not only are you doing very well in relation to the rest of the world, you're also doing very well compared to your own countrymen. An average ER doctor makes at least $260,000. That places you in the top 1% of the country as far as salary goes.

You can argue a little bit here and there and talk about student loans, etc., but do you really think you wouldn't at least be in the top 5-10 percent of the country!?

Of note, I do spend time overseas every year teaching. But you'll probably turn around and tell me that's white privilege too.

That's great! Why would I say that?? *confused*

I'm waiting to see what was handed to me. I had to work full time in college to pay for my schooling. I didn't get into medical school or residency the first time. While I may have been lucky, I certainly haven't had things given to me, no matter how much of a silver spoon you think my "highest educated parents in the world with their GED" had in my mouth.

I never said that everything was handed to you, or to feel guilty. Rather, all I am saying is that we all should stop and reflect about how blessed we are. We had the opportunity to work hard and excel. In many parts of the world, you wouldn't have that opportunity. Opportunity doesn't mean something being handed to you. It means simply the chance to work hard and make a good living from that. The fact that we often don't even acknowledge that shows how privileged--or rather, blessed--we truly are. A blessing turns into a privilege when we don't realize it means giving back--and bravo, for you doing just that by teaching overseas!

Segregation was government enforced. Did you forget that?

Of course. I never said that government was amazing. In fact, governments can often be incredibly oppressive. I'm confused. Do you think that is what my argument is? *confused*

My argument is rooted in Rawlsian Ethics and the Original Position, which basically states that we should imagine ourselves behind a screen, and not knowing which womb or where we would be born. Then, we design the rules based on this uncertainty. This way, we would make sure it is fair and that there is a base minimum, because we don't know we might even be born to the lowest class possible. You definitely wouldn't become a libertarian!

This ethic is also based in individualism and valuing people as individuals, as opposed to adopting a racist ideology and ethic, which GeneralVeers does, i.e. viewing people and their worth as racial, ethnic, religious groups... In such a racist mindset, he does not want to consider people of other races as people worthy of consideration. i.e. I don't need to care about or have any empathy for people in other countries. In fact, they are the problem. Hell, I don't care about the people in this country. I only care about me and people like me.

 

[deleted480308]

LMAO oh really? Just like people dont want to pay 600 bucks for 2 epipens when they initially sold for 100? Just like people dont want to pay 150K for a hep c cure when its sold for 900 in India and Egypt?
If the internet you use currently goes from 50/month to 200/month for the same speed, is that not considered price gouging?

Gouging is just a scary word for unpopular pricing, I have no problem with it

 

[Status Sciaticus]

Gouging is just a scary word for unpopular pricing, I have no problem with it

LOL ok, thankfully the majority of people do.
To use your argument: Unpopular pricing is just an excuse coy way of saying "robbing you blind"

 

[Angry Birds]

I keep reading this thread as "net neutrality poop"

 

[deleted480308]

LOL ok, thankfully the majority of people do.
To use your argument: Unpopular pricing is just an excuse coy way of saying "robbing you blind"

you can always (particularly without govt intervention causing monopolies) search for a better option

 

[Robotic Wis-Hipple]

Most people here are focusing on the money part, arguing for or against free market or the ability of a company to raise prices as they see fit. But that's literally not even the story here, that's the red herring.

The most concerning issue with loss of net neutrality is the manipulation of content that will then be possible. Currently cable companies are required to treat all traffic and content the same, outside of some that initiate throttling high end users at certain data usage, there is no preference given to types of content. But if net neutrality goes away there will be nothing stopping cable companies from throttling the speeds of, oh let's just say Netflix, because that site is killing their TV business. Comcast is affiliated with ABC, so they may allow streaming of ABC content to be faster than NBC content. What about beyond speeds? If you don't think Comcast or any other cable provider would prioritize what you see, what content they prioritize you're naive. The internet will become essentially a cable TV package, don't want to pay top dollar for the ability to see all of the Internet? Well, we have cheaper packages but all you'll see is the content or websites that we want you to see, those that bring in ad revenue to our corporation etc. You'll start seeing deals between cable providers and websites to push their content or allow their websites to be seen in lower tiered plans, or exclusivity contracts resulting in customers being required to get Comcast, or Cox, or whatever company to even go to Netflix. It's a terrible, terrible idea based completely on cable providers wanting to increase revenue streams and utilize the monopoly they have on the infrastructure.

If you want the internet you see to be driven by how much you pay and what company you go through, by all means be against net neutrality. But you have no idea of the downstream effects it will have.

 

[Status Sciaticus]

you can always (particularly without govt intervention causing monopolies) search for a better option

That I can agree with you on. However, searching for alternatives without any protection in place is stupid. Its like repealing obamacare without replacing it with something simultaneously..... The whole "we will figure it out later" or shoot first ask questions later hasn't worked in the past and it wont now. An appropriate thing to do would be to find alternatives with net neutrality in place.

 

[deleted480308]

That I can agree with you on. However, searching for alternatives without any protection in place is stupid. Its like repealing obamacare without replacing it with something simultaneously..... The whole "we will figure it out later" or shoot first ask questions later hasn't worked in the past and it wont now. An appropriate thing to do would be to find alternatives with net neutrality in place.

the obamacare thing is a bad analogy....there literally should not be a "thing" to replace it with. The system should be, if you need a medical service you find and pay a medical provider their price if you want it from them.

 

[deleted480308]

Most people here are focusing on the money part, arguing for or against free market or the ability of a company to raise prices as they see fit. But that's literally not even the story here, that's the red herring.

The most concerning issue with loss of net neutrality is the manipulation of content that will then be possible. Currently cable companies are required to treat all traffic and content the same, outside of some that initiate throttling high end users at certain data usage, there is no preference given to types of content. But if net neutrality goes away there will be nothing stopping cable companies from throttling the speeds of, oh let's just say Netflix, because that site is killing their TV business. Comcast is affiliated with ABC, so they may allow streaming of ABC content to be faster than NBC content. What about beyond speeds? If you don't think Comcast or any other cable provider would prioritize what you see, what content they prioritize you're naive. The internet will become essentially a cable TV package, don't want to pay top dollar for the ability to see all of the Internet? Well, we have cheaper packages but all you'll see is the content or websites that we want you to see, those that bring in ad revenue to our corporation etc. You'll start seeing deals between cable providers and websites to push their content or allow their websites to be seen in lower tiered plans, or exclusivity contracts resulting in customers being required to get Comcast, or Cox, or whatever company to even go to Netflix. It's a terrible, terrible idea based completely on cable providers wanting to increase revenue streams and utilize the monopoly they have on the infrastructure.

If you want the internet you see to be driven by how much you pay and what company you go through, by all means be against net neutrality. But you have no idea of the downstream effects it will have.

I'm fully aware that an ISP can throttle/censor.....they are a private company and that should be legal as long as they aren't claiming to not do it at the same time (breach of contract)

 

[Angry Birds]

the obamacare thing is a bad analogy....there literally should not be a "thing" to replace it with. The system should be, if you need a medical service you find and pay a medical provider their price if you want it from them.

Please tell this to the child born with a pre-existing condition.

 

[Robotic Wis-Hipple]

I'm fully aware that an ISP can throttle/censor.....they are a private company and that should be legal as long as they aren't claiming to not do it at the same time (breach of contract)

So your plan is to find the company that provides content that aligns with your views? That sounds like a great idea for the masses....

Even if I didn't think that was ridiculous, which I do, I'm fairly confident that won't be possible in this business utopian future of your dreams. The average family isn't able to choose their service provider. Many apartment complexes contract with one cable company, many neighborhoods are essentially regional monopolies, etc. This is saying nothing of the poor who may not be able to pay for the new higher priced unbiased internet even if they do have a choice of different providers.

It blows my mind people don't see the future with loss of net neutrality. Political candidates will pay providers to divert traffic away from their opponents party or websites/news sites that don't align with them. It will shape elections, it will shape the minds of our youth based primarily on regional or political climates and which content providers pony up the money to get their content prioritized.

Your argument that just because these are private companies and not a govt like N. Korea, the censorship of the internet won't be a bad thing is idyllic yet insane. Verizon and Comcast will leverage this power to the highest bidder, and the results will be the opposite of free information, it will be targeted, biased, and likely expensive.

But what the hell, we all should be at the mercy of big corporate overlords, because.... capitalism!

 

[deleted480308]

Please tell this to the child born with a pre-existing condition.

children's expenses are the responsibility of their parents.....they may approach charities if they want help

but let's also not pretend that are doing anything but arguing the "exceptional" case....would you be willing to adopt a "you're on your own" policy for everyone over 18?

 

[Status Sciaticus]

the obamacare thing is a bad analogy....there literally should not be a "thing" to replace it with. The system should be, if you need a medical service you find and pay a medical provider their price if you want it from them.

Actually its a perfect analogy, since its embodies the concept of a few wealthy corporations and families profiting from tax cuts (which they should be legally paying) at the expense of the taxpayers and the middle class and the poor. I dont think a poor person bringing in a child with a pre-existing condition can afford to pay the exorbitant costs of healthcare. By your claim, should he let his child die because now there is not a law protecting him from price gouging?

children's expenses are the responsibility of their parents.....they may approach charities if they want help

but let's also not pretend that are doing anything but arguing the "exceptional" case....would you be willing to adopt a "you're on your own" policy for everyone over 18?

Parents cant expect to predict congenital defects, it would be stupid to even bring that up. And (being the devils advocate here) they cant have elective abortions because the majority of the US makes it increasingly difficult to find one that is accessible. Lol charities? Yea thats why we have medicaid and its expansion, to cover the cost of children's expenses when families cant afford it on their own.

18 isnt some magical age where all your pre-existing or congenital conditions go away, so adopting a "youre on your own" policy on an arbitrary guideline seems foolish.

 

[deleted480308]

Actually its a perfect analogy, since its embodies the concept of a few wealthy corporations and families profiting from tax cuts (which they should be legally paying) at the expense of the taxpayers and the middle class and the poor. I dont think a poor person bringing in a child with a pre-existing condition can afford to pay the exorbitant costs of healthcare. By your claim, should he let his child die because now there is not a law protecting him from price gouging?



Parents cant expect to predict congenital defects, it would be stupid to even bring that up. And (being the devils advocate here) they cant have elective abortions because the majority of the US makes it increasingly difficult to find one that is accessible. Lol charities? Yea thats why we have medicaid and its expansion, to cover the cost of children's expenses when families cant afford it on their own.

18 isnt some magical age where all your pre-existing or congenital conditions go away, so adopting a "youre on your own" policy on an arbitrary guideline seems foolish.

the arbitrarily guideline is you don't have a right to your neighbors wallet at any age....you were the one implying that age somehow changed that by picking a kid as an example, I was just getting you to admit you don't restrict your belief to kids

 

[Status Sciaticus]

the arbitrarily guideline is you don't have a right to your neighbors wallet at any age....you were the one implying that age somehow changed that by picking a kid as an example, I was just getting you to admit you don't restrict your belief to kids

I used the example of a kid because of the concept of pre-existing conditions and congenital diseases, not because of their age. I never said I have a right to your wallet, but the government does. And what it uses it for is upto the majority, which thankfully is not the libertarians.

 

[deleted480308]

I used the example of a kid because of the concept of pre-existing conditions and congenital diseases, not because of their age. I never said I have a right to your wallet, but the government does. And what it uses it for is upto the majority, which thankfully is not the libertarians.

"the govt" is just a group of a group of people....if you advocate their actions you don't get to absolve yourself of those actions

 

[GeneralVeers]

First, I did not say that you should feel guilty. Rather, I only stated that we ought to feel blessed and thereby acknowledge those less fortunate than us. There is a huge difference.

Secondly, your racist-laden argument has a long precedence in history:

It's the Jews. It's the Irish. It's the blacks. It's the Mexicans. It's the Arabs. It's the Muslims. It's the refugees.

It's xenophobia. You are a xenophobe. Do you, by the way, support Richard Spencer? He seems to be your guy.

Thanks for bringing college campus Progressive PC bull**** to this forum! I said nothing Xenophobic or racist. Yet that is the go-to default position of the Left every time they are challenged. I think you have revealed yourself for what you are. Insulting people and calling them racist demonstrates your inability to argue as a rational human being.

 

[dadaddadaBATMAN]

I do believe in free markets and their overall ability to make life better.

However, our current situation is not a free market, it's a limited set of corporations colluding to form a cartel and attempting mergers to create a genuine monopoly. They have facilitated this growth by manipulation of local and state regulation.

In an ideal world federal regulation would be unnecessary, and I agree that it would be better to simply have heavy competition and a market price. But that doesn't exist. I don't want my water or electric left to market forces when they have an intensely regulated natural monopoly and high entrance barriers.

Arguing that we should avoid federal regulation in response to these circumstances is similar to saying we shouldn't have a military because we want world peace. It's idealistic nonsense, and it would just leave us without defenses.

The points on censorship are also accurate, and are important to a free press in this day and age.

 

[WilcoWorld]

Internet=/=epinephrine or Hep C treatments. I promise you can live without one of them. You pick.

It's epinephrine, right? The thing that doesn't actually help me or my patients...

 

[jw3600]

It's epinephrine, right? The thing that doesn't actually help me or my patients...

You don't like epi?

 

[d2305]

Medscape: Medscape Access

 

[deleted109597]

Medscape: Medscape Access

We are talking about epi for anaphylaxis though. Unless you're using your epi pens wrong.

 

[d2305]

Guess it does work for anaphylaxis. I used one one after 4.8 mu procaine penicillin IM. Not an epipen but a tubex.

 

[WilcoWorld]

So, first of all, I was being flippant.

Second of all, I meant to rib McNinja a bit by playing on the fact that epinephrine in cardiac arrest does not have well-demonstrated patient-oriented benefit. Epinephrine in anaphylaxis is on firm ground, as far as I am concerned. Do I actually hold the epi in a code? No, but I don't fool myself into thinking that an amp of it will magically bring someone back from the dead long enough for them to leave an ICU.

Third of all, not allowing corporate interests to determine my access to information seems like a good democratic (lower case "d") virtue to me, but I have not looked into this bill in any great detail so I'll avoid saying more about it than (mostly unhelpful) off-the-cuff snarky remarks.

 

[deleted109597]

So, first of all, I was being flippant.

 

[Mad Jack]

This is one of those things where he's right though. The reason we have ****ter cellular service than Africa is because of government meddling. The same is true here. Look at my state, where Tesla can't sell cars direct to consumer because the dealerships have made the laws disallow it. Deregulating the power companies was good or not for you? I mean, allowing other companies to use the lines works in cellular and power, why wouldn't it in cable/fiber? Oh right, because people want the government to keep it good for them.
This isn't child labor or safety regulations. People aren't dying from lack of high speed internet. A little growing pains for a better outcome is laudable.

Yeah, we should be more like Africa! Wait...