4 ms·
So your argument is, since it's not exactly what you want, you aren't going to pay for it.
by egonschiele 6y ago
So your argument is, since it's not exactly what you want, you aren't going to pay for it.
- cxr 6y agoIf you have to resort to putting words in someone's mouth, it's a decent hint that either your position is weak or your understanding of their position is. To answer your question: no, that's not my argument.
- egonschiele 6y agoIn that case I'm sorry -- what IS your argument? It wasn't clear to me from your original comment.
- cercatrova 6y agoWell, yes. Even as the parent poster says that this isn't their argument, let us assume it is. Why would I pay for something if it doesn't fit my needs? I don't see other merchants think they're entitled to my sale.
- egonschiele 6y agoSo just to be clear, the choices on the table are, 1. Let the news die. 2. Pay for the news, suck up the fact that it isn't exactly what you want it to be. 3. Don't pay for the news and hope the rest of us pay for it so it doesn't die. If you see another choice please let me know.
- cercatrova 6y agoI'd pick 1. I don't believe news is some sacred service that must exist. Of course, if it were, the government could provide it, but it might cause issues with independence of state and the people, depending on the type of government. So, it's a service based on the free market, thus it must compete on the free market, no? It seems like you believe that news is sacred, so your conclusions will differ from mine as we draw from different axiomatic beliefs. If that's the case, we won't be able to convince each other.