> And you completely failed to do so. All you showed was that there exists somebody who doesn't want net neutrality. That shows it isn't black and white. You c

> And you completely failed to do so. All you showed was that there exists somebody who doesn't want net neutrality. That shows it isn't black and white. You can't have a group of people who has differing opinions than yours and simply write them off. There are various ways of weighing ones position. Maybe it ends up being morally wrong for a large amount of people but that still does not make it "black and white". Very, very, very little of life is actually black and white. When you show an inability to see something from another perspective you will fail ever convincing them of your side. > You didn't even show whether they have any non-selfish reasons for that opinion[...]You showed the existence of opposition, not the existence of reasonable or viable opposition. Irrelevant. To many on the other side your point may not be reasonable or viable. Does that mean they are equally able to say the issue is "black and white" in their favor? No. > I'd like to know roughly what you would consider to be sufficient justification for calling a politicized issue one-sided with respect to its public policy soundness. I'm not sure I would call many if any issues one-sided. That's just not how life works and is incredibly rare.