5 ms·

> because it is literally a car? Huh? It is a vehicle, yes, but how is it a car?

by drdeca 9y ago

return0 9y ago
yeah alright its a vehicle, not an automobile (because only motor-cars are real cars), how does that change the meaning of what i said, that for a lot of people who can't afford the car it's the affordable substitute?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  That's just not what you said. You said a bicycle was a car and therefore should be called a car.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- drdeca 9y ago
  I might also consider a carriage to be a car? As well as a train car. Certainly I agree that it should be legal to sell bicycles. But if there were a monopoly on vehicles, and the company built in equipment to all their vehicles that would only allow the vehicle to travel on routes that the rider had specifically paid the vehicle company for a subscription to, I would consider that to be a very bad thing. Now, I suppose I get the general idea of "why forbid the lower quality good, if doing so only prevents some people from being able to afford the good in any form, when before they would have bought the lower quality version?". But, does that argument apply to the artificially restricted vehicle example I gave? I find it hard to believe that the company in that hypothetical wouldn't be doing something wrong, and which should be dealt with. However, I'm not sure exactly what the issue would be. Would the internet case be more like the weird case I described, or more like insurance which doesn't cover as many things?
  - return0 9y ago
    > But if there were a monopoly on vehicles, and the company built in equipment to all their vehicles that would only allow the vehicle to travel on routes that the rider had specifically paid the vehicle company for a subscription to, I would consider that to be a very bad thing. Yet you do it all the time, especially with the firmware in all your devices. Apple blatantly blocks you from using an FM chip that you bought. Everywhere in the world you find cellphones locked to specific networks. People buy restricted versions of all kinds of things because they are cheaper. Is there a single moral standard here?

> because it is literally a car? Huh? It is a vehicle, yes, but how is it a car?

by drdeca 9y ago

> because it is literally a car? Huh? It is a vehicle, yes, but how is it a car?

yeah alright its a vehicle, not an automobile (because only motor-cars are real cars), how does that change the meaning of what i said, that for a lot of people who can't afford the car it's the affordable substitute?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
That's just not what you said. You said a bicycle was a car and therefore should be called a car.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
drdeca 9y ago
I might also consider a carriage to be a car? As well as a train car. Certainly I agree that it should be legal to sell bicycles. But if there were a monopoly on vehicles, and the company built in equipment to all their vehicles that would only allow the vehicle to travel on routes that the rider had specifically paid the vehicle company for a subscription to, I would consider that to be a very bad thing. Now, I suppose I get the general idea of "why forbid the lower quality good, if doing so only prevents some people from being able to afford the good in any form, when before they would have bought the lower quality version?". But, does that argument apply to the artificially restricted vehicle example I gave? I find it hard to believe that the company in that hypothetical wouldn't be doing something wrong, and which should be dealt with. However, I'm not sure exactly what the issue would be. Would the internet case be more like the weird case I described, or more like insurance which doesn't cover as many things?
- return0 9y ago
  > But if there were a monopoly on vehicles, and the company built in equipment to all their vehicles that would only allow the vehicle to travel on routes that the rider had specifically paid the vehicle company for a subscription to, I would consider that to be a very bad thing. Yet you do it all the time, especially with the firmware in all your devices. Apple blatantly blocks you from using an FM chip that you bought. Everywhere in the world you find cellphones locked to specific networks. People buy restricted versions of all kinds of things because they are cheaper. Is there a single moral standard here?