4 ms·
> You’re arguing that poor neighborhoods should pricier or worse water and sewage hah. I'm certain there's plenty of people here would agree with that.
by bigbillheck 3y ago
> You’re arguing that poor neighborhoods should pricier or worse water and sewage hah.
I'm certain there's plenty of people here would agree with that.
- dogman144 3y agoI think that’s the root issue, yes.
- gottorf 3y agoTo assume that those who disagree with you is doing so on the basis of wanting to inflict pain on lower-income people is both intellectually lazy as well as in violation of the HN guidelines, which ask you[0] to follow the principle of charity. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dogman144 3y agoNowhere did anyone say wanting to inflict pain. Justifying higher prices was what you were doing, what OP noted, and what I agree with as a trend.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gottorf 3y agoI'm not justifying higher prices; I'm justifying different prices. There seemed to be an implication that some people wanted higher prices in poorer neighborhoods just to stick it to the poor in wording like this: > You’re arguing that poor neighborhoods should pricier or worse water and sewage hah. I apologize if I read into something that wasn't there. To clarify, I won't be upset if some poor neighborhoods happen to pay less for internet service than wealthy neighborhoods, either. And I fully understand your argument made elsewhere that you consider internet access to be a public utility that should be equally priced within the area, much like power or water.