You miss the point. I’m just saying there will be SOME stipulations on how its used
Edit:
Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity. With no stipulations on how or why you’re using it.
Should have just been according to everyone:
Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity.
Yall telling me some stipulations dont need to be mentioned, using utilites as an example, and yet im also pointing that out and you are trying to say the same thing i am but using my own argument to convince me im wrong.
Only in the sense that laws still need to be followed while using [the internet/water/electricity]. You don’t need to bake “no CSAM” into internet usage agreements, because it’s already illegal.
I mean yeah, but I they were talking about net neutrality, preventing ISPs from unilaterally making those decisions, not that there would be Literally No restrictions.
Should have said what they meant then instead of being lazy. There will be so many obvious stipulations it was stupid to say no stipulations. Dont understand why so many people insist on avoiding saying what they mean and just then say, you know what i meant.
I say this because if you have ever planned or ran a dnd(or any ttrpg)game you are quickly made aware that whats obvious to most, and even what should be obvious to most will often be the hardest thing to get people to include in how they hear what they are being told.
Its wild how much we expect people to assume, when we have so much evidence, if you care to ask for it/look for it and how often we get caught up with dumb derailments(Case in point… I think we are having a discussion, but wont be surprised if you think we are arguing over pedantry. )
Okay fair enough and thank you for responding. Im not arguing the pedantry of it, but i do believe its useful and not needless. Meaning i think its worth discussing and debating.
Because if im wrong, then theres no difference between;
Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity. With no stipulations on how or why you’re using it.
And
Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity.
So if im wrong as i understand thats what you mean, i would genuinely like to understand what/why ”with no stupulations on how or why you’re using it" it is worth including.
Again if im wrong i literally cant see the difference and will go a long way to help me not respond to these kinds of things in the future and you would have done a service by helping me not derail other conversations. Which i will be very grateful for your help
You’re not wrong, as far as the logical expansion of the statements in question. The ‘with no stipulations’ part is, technically, unnecessary. But we don’t live in a Platonic ideal. You are free to add reinforcing/qualifying statements to a basic idea being posited. If you’re being sincere in your request for clarity, and not just being a snark, my advice would be to ignore everything I say and just do as you want! LOL
No snark. I dont understand the point of adding that second line if its not accurate or indicative of the previous statement. If it isnt clarifying conditions of the previous statement, it just adding confusion. So how does it “reinforce”. Like literally how is that a statement that supports the previous one?
Edit. Im starting to think maybe i am on the spectrum…
Good thing water and electricity can’t be used to harm kids.
You miss the point. I’m just saying there will be SOME stipulations on how its used
Edit:
Should have just been according to everyone:
Yall telling me some stipulations dont need to be mentioned, using utilites as an example, and yet im also pointing that out and you are trying to say the same thing i am but using my own argument to convince me im wrong.
What a wild place
Only in the sense that laws still need to be followed while using [the internet/water/electricity]. You don’t need to bake “no CSAM” into internet usage agreements, because it’s already illegal.
Okay but there’s much less obvious examples. My point still stands
Also see my reply to gh0stcassette
I mean yeah, but I they were talking about net neutrality, preventing ISPs from unilaterally making those decisions, not that there would be Literally No restrictions.
Should have said what they meant then instead of being lazy. There will be so many obvious stipulations it was stupid to say no stipulations. Dont understand why so many people insist on avoiding saying what they mean and just then say, you know what i meant.
I say this because if you have ever planned or ran a dnd(or any ttrpg)game you are quickly made aware that whats obvious to most, and even what should be obvious to most will often be the hardest thing to get people to include in how they hear what they are being told.
Its wild how much we expect people to assume, when we have so much evidence, if you care to ask for it/look for it and how often we get caught up with dumb derailments(Case in point… I think we are having a discussion, but wont be surprised if you think we are arguing over pedantry. )
As an outside observer, I feel like I can confidently say that you are wrong. YOU are being needlessly pedantic and derailing the conversation.
Okay fair enough and thank you for responding. Im not arguing the pedantry of it, but i do believe its useful and not needless. Meaning i think its worth discussing and debating.
Because if im wrong, then theres no difference between;
And
So if im wrong as i understand thats what you mean, i would genuinely like to understand what/why ”with no stupulations on how or why you’re using it" it is worth including.
Again if im wrong i literally cant see the difference and will go a long way to help me not respond to these kinds of things in the future and you would have done a service by helping me not derail other conversations. Which i will be very grateful for your help
Really? Are you on the spectrum?
You’re not wrong, as far as the logical expansion of the statements in question. The ‘with no stipulations’ part is, technically, unnecessary. But we don’t live in a Platonic ideal. You are free to add reinforcing/qualifying statements to a basic idea being posited. If you’re being sincere in your request for clarity, and not just being a snark, my advice would be to ignore everything I say and just do as you want! LOL
No snark. I dont understand the point of adding that second line if its not accurate or indicative of the previous statement. If it isnt clarifying conditions of the previous statement, it just adding confusion. So how does it “reinforce”. Like literally how is that a statement that supports the previous one?
Edit. Im starting to think maybe i am on the spectrum…