2 ms·

> Chicago school is a broad term for an economics ideology, like "Austrian". I know. > Those surveyed are part of that ideology. I’ll repeat my question: How

> Chicago school is a broad term for an economics ideology, like "Austrian". I know. > Those surveyed are part of that ideology. I’ll repeat my question: How so? > So tell me then, how does this magical go faster lane work from a technical perspective, and how is net neutrality not letting them turn it on? Please be specific. I don’t know what “magical” lane you’re referring to, since I don’t believe in magic. Are you trying to score rhetorical points by using such language? Does it make you feel better to attack strawmen?

monocasa 8y ago
> How so? It's literally the point of the organization that did the survey; these economists are members of this organization. > I don’t know what “magical” lane you’re referring to, since I don’t believe in magic. Are you trying to score rhetorical points by using such language? Does it make you feel better to attack strawmen? You're the one being intentionally vague with "what you think a policy 'is about' and its actual consequences are very different things." I'm trying to get you to be specific concerning the technical details of your argument, but you seem to be fighting that pretty hard.
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  > It's literally the point of the organization that did the survey What is “the point” of the organization that did the survey? > these economists are members of this organization. In the sense that they are surveyed by this organization? Do you mean that anyone who is surveyed by organization X belongs to X? > You’re the one being intentionally vague with "what you think a policy 'is about' and its actual consequences are very different things." I wasn’t being vague, much less intentionally. I was merely pointing out that what you (or I) think a policy “is about” is very different from its real-world consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences > I'm trying to get you to be specific concerning the technical details of your argument What “argument” of mine are you referring to? And why do you hold me to such high standards of “technical details”, which you don’t seem to apply to yourself? That’s just plain hypocrisy. > but you seem to be fighting that pretty hard. I honestly have no idea where you’re trying to go with this.

monocasa 8y ago

> How so? It's literally the point of the organization that did the survey; these economists are members of this organization. > I don’t know what “magical” lane you’re referring to, since I don’t believe in magic. Are you trying to score rhetorical points by using such language? Does it make you feel better to attack strawmen? You're the one being intentionally vague with "what you think a policy 'is about' and its actual consequences are very different things." I'm trying to get you to be specific concerning the technical details of your argument, but you seem to be fighting that pretty hard.

throwaway37585 8y ago
> It's literally the point of the organization that did the survey What is “the point” of the organization that did the survey? > these economists are members of this organization. In the sense that they are surveyed by this organization? Do you mean that anyone who is surveyed by organization X belongs to X? > You’re the one being intentionally vague with "what you think a policy 'is about' and its actual consequences are very different things." I wasn’t being vague, much less intentionally. I was merely pointing out that what you (or I) think a policy “is about” is very different from its real-world consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences > I'm trying to get you to be specific concerning the technical details of your argument What “argument” of mine are you referring to? And why do you hold me to such high standards of “technical details”, which you don’t seem to apply to yourself? That’s just plain hypocrisy. > but you seem to be fighting that pretty hard. I honestly have no idea where you’re trying to go with this.