- Apr 5, 2010
- Reaction score
More argumentum ad absurdum to avoid the actual argument. It's the only play right now in your play book.Doesn’t matter what you think your yard is or isn’t. The government will declare it the commons. You don’t get a say in the matter.Again, my yard isn't the focus of our political and social debate. You want to claim I still have a right to travel after banning my car because I can still take a dirigible.It will be once we make it the commons. Your lack of allowing us to put signs there is silencing me and my side.My yard isn't driving the political discourse of the country in general. You like this current situation because it isn't your side being silenced.Kinda like saying you can still own your yard but you have to let me put my signs in the front.And they would continue to own the servers, and the revenue, and the intellectual property. They would just be regulated to be the open platform they claim to be.
They are not “commons”.
People aren’t being silenced because they have the actual commons with which to have their speech.
If you want to take rights away from some people you best expect your rights to be taken away too.
You have to go with an absurd argument because you don't have a real one besides "people I hate are being silenced so I am ok with it"
Your argument is shifting all the time, based on zero legal premise because you’re just saying shit that kinda sounds right but you don’t really understand the issue. Hence why you think you can declare something “commons” because you want to.
And your argument is nothing more than "Ha ha big corporations do my dirty work for me ha ha ha"