4 ms·
I contend that I have thought about this a lot more than you have, and that your incredulity stems directly from choosing not to think about it. But to respond,
by GHFigs 14y ago
I contend that I have thought about this a lot more than you have, and that your incredulity stems directly from choosing not to think about it. But to respond, anyway:
If your relationships with distant friends and family depend on you watching television shows at the same time, and you're unwilling to pay the asked price for those television shows, then yeah, maybe you should fly cross-country to see them.
Because what does it say about how much you value those relationships if the thing that is allegedly so important to them is not only ephemeral and impersonal but also thought of as not worth paying for?
Personally, I think the better option is to not feel like you have to watch all the same television at the same time as other people, but that seems to be a wildly unpopular notion these days.
- jjkmk 14y agoThis logic might work in a utopian world, but think about it practically; were talking about business. If you have a product that is in demand, and people willing to pay for it. Find a way to connect your product with the intended buyer. A practical solution is not to geographically exclude areas and markets and then argue that they should be flying to said countries to watch these shows. This is the equivalent Republican style argument that the answer to poverty in the inner city is for students to obtain a MBA's.