- In any debate, your objective is not to convince your opponent; they will rarely if ever change their views. Your objective is to convince the onlookers, as they have no personal stake in the outcome and are therefore more open to reconsidering their previous beliefs.
- When arguing with those close to you, instead of taking a "You vs. I" approach, try taking it from a "We vs. Problem" approach.
- Confidence isn't "I know she likes me", confidence is "I'll be okay whether she likes me or not."
- Next time you're in a traffic jam, just remember you're not IN traffic, you ARE traffic.
From Kenneth Samples regarding how humans differ from animals.
Human beings are conscious of time, reality, and truth. They
study the past, recognize the present, and anticipate the future. People live
their entire lives aware of the constraints of time. Yet human beings also
desire to transcend time: they think about living forever. Reflective people
wonder whether their perception of reality matches with reality itself. Human
beings uniquely pursue truth, leading to the founding and development of
philosophy, science, mathematics, logic, the arts, and religious worldviews.
What is real (metaphysics), what is true (epistemology), what is right (ethics),
and what is rational (logic) are paramount questions, but again, only for man.
From Don Moyer regarding the logical problem with abortion.
There are only four possibilities in terms of our knowledge
about the “fetus” when it comes to practicing abortion:
The fetus is a person, and we know it.
The fetus is a person, but we don’t know it.
The fetus isn’t a person, but we don’t know it.
The fetus isn’t a person, and we know it.
In the first case, the practice of abortion is first degree
murder. If we know the fetus is a person, yet we deliberately kill it, then we
have willfully taken innocent human life, and we know that. In the second case,
if the fetus is a person but we don’t know it, then at best abortion would be
some form of manslaughter (and that’s being nice about it). All would still
have to logically recognize that it is wrong. In the third case, if the fetus
is not a person, but we don’t know it, then abortion becomes extremely
irresponsible. It would be like knocking a building down while hoping against
knowledge that there might not be any persons in the building. Maybe you get
lucky, but you don’t know. You just do it anyway. Who can reasonably say that the
action is justified in this instance? Who can call this responsible behavior?
The fourth possibility, that the fetus isn’t a person and we
know it, is the only possibility that would allow abortion as a responsible
action. This would be based not only upon the fetus not being a person, but
knowing that it is not a person. There could be no doubt about it. It would
have to be indisputable knowledge that the fetus is in no way a person. So
here’s the problem for the one who defends abortion. Who among abortionists can
be absolutely certain that the fetus in the womb is not a person? When the
fetus has its own heartbeat, its own body, brain, movements, etc., who can
dogmatically know that there is no human person there? Thus even from a
skeptical point of view, abortion cannot be logically or rationally justified.
In this view, we don’t even need to prove that the fetus is a person. Rather,
those who take the life have to prove that it is not a person. There is a
burden of proof that none can bear.
From Joe Cascio regarding the conflation and confusion of the concepts of Common Carriage and Public Utilities:
I would urge everyone to read the actual specifics of the FCC proposal here. http://media.npr.org/…/2015/feb/fcc-wheeler-openinternet.pdf and to read the chairman's actual announcement linked below.
-----------------------------------------------------
First some definitions.
First some definitions.
Common Carrier: A common carrier is legally bound to carry all passengers or freight as long as there is enough space, the fee is paid, and no reasonable grounds to refuse to do so exist. A common carrier that unjustifiably refuses to carry a particular person or cargo may be sued for damages."
Public Utilities: "Businesses that provide the public with necessities, such as water, electricity, natural gas, and telephone and telegraph communication.
Typically a public utility has a Monopoly on the service it provides. It is more economically efficient to have only one business provide the service because the infrastructure required to produce and deliver a product such as electricity or water is very expensive to build and maintain."
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
The FCC proposal it says in part: " the proposal provides the broad legal certainty required for rules guaranteeing an open Internet, while refraining (or “forbearing”) from enforcing provisions of Title II that are not relevant to modern broadband service. Together Title II and Section 706 support clear rules of the road, providing the certainty needed for innovators and investors, and the competitive choices and freedom demanded by consumers."
So, in citing "competitive choices and freedom demanded by consumers" the proposal specifically rules out the primary touchstone of a Public Utility, namely that it is a monopoly.
Further on, the proposal calls out "Major Provisions of Title II subject to forbearance", which means those that will NOT be applied.
---------------------
o Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation.
---------------------
o Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation.
o Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254
o The Order will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees – there will be no automatic Universal Service fees applied and the congressional moratorium on Internet taxation applies to broadband.
----------------------
All of the above things that will NOT be done are what are typically done with Public Utilities.
----------------------
All of the above things that will NOT be done are what are typically done with Public Utilities.
So, the FCC is most definitely NOT proposing running the Internet as a Public Utility. Of course, some people are going to apply the "Camel's nose in the tent" cynicism here, but I see no reason to consider that seriously.
So can we please stop saying the FCC wants to run the internet like a public utility?
Thank you!
Article referenced: http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality
Link to Joe's blog: http://joecascio.net/joecblog
Article referenced: http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality
Link to Joe's blog: http://joecascio.net/joecblog
No comments:
Post a Comment