3 ms·
> then banks have a better case > doesn't respond to anything in the parent comment you're allegedly replying to Except it does. You say yourself, banks would
by zanny 12y ago
> then banks have a better case
> doesn't respond to anything in the parent comment you're allegedly replying to
Except it does. You say yourself, banks would have a better case, but when you say it out loud it sounds absurd. The only time a business is an accomplice to bank robbery is when they are intentionally promoting it explicitly, but when their business enables it. To degrade that argument to civil conflicts and then claim ISPs are responsible for their users is more ridiculous.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago> when you say it out loud it sounds absurd Hey, what a funny coincidence. If only there were some well-known style of argument with such a feature. It could be called something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_absurdity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_absurdity You seem to have confused an argument against ISP liability for customer behavior with an argument in favor of the same.