Re: Explaining law to Potts
"No doubt, but there are chowderheads of all religions on the internet. Your vanity - as the most righteous and caring person in the room - blinds you to some of your own defects."
I honestly don't see where you get "most righteous and caring person in the room" from someone who fairly publicly takes pleasure in your anger and intellectual disquiet. I am, however, interested that my having a moral code which places the needs of the many above the needs of the powerful few so deeply upsets you.
Somehow, you see that as vanity. I'm not saying I'm not a vain person - I think we all are, to some extent - but there is something really broken inside of you if "caring for others" makes you "vain". Really, really broken.
"I have replied to your other comment and do not need to repeat it."
No, actually, you didn't. You made a claim that the FCC doesn't have the legal authority to place data services under title II, but backed it up with fuck all. You're wrong. They do have that authority. The Supreme Court, when bounding the previous Net Neutrality attempt said as much. The sort version was "you don't have the legal authority to create a Net Neutrality compromise. If you want to impose this you need to classify under Title II". Which is exactly what they did. They also have the legal authority to forbear parts of Title II, which they did.
The FCC did not reach for powers it didn't have here. It didn't invent new powers. It used the tools it had (finally!) The fact that you don't like what they did, or that you believe they should have that authority doesn't matter. You are caught in the is/ought problem and can't shake yourself loose.
"At issue is legislative intent and the legal authority of the agency."
No. There is no issue with the legal authority of the agency. It is perfectly within its rights to do what it did. In fact, placing data services under Title II is one of the only powers it actually has.
"Just as I predicted, when challenged, you resort to self-righteous moralising."
You mean the part, several comments ago where I explained in plain English that you're wrong? No, actually, I'm pretty sure that I discussed things like Title II authority, the limits of authority, and why the federal government does in fact have the right to regulate here.
That I threw in some shots at you being an idiot and got your feelers all twisted up doesn't really distract form that. It just makes it a hell of a lot more interesting. Especially since you keep coming back to bellow your righteous indignation.
Oh, woe! Your ego! How low a blow, how callous this show! If only, (if only!) these heathens would listen to you, they'd know!
Maybe when you're all growed up you can learn about playing nice with others. After that we can work on your Randian belief that selfishness is virtue. Before you die we might almost make you human!
Until then, I'm just going to mock you. Because, in addition to being outright wrong in your analysis, you're not a very good or nice person. And so I will make my day better at your expense and feel no guilt about that whatsoever.
That makes me far from "the most caring person in the room", but I am really learning to live with - and like - the practice of selective benevolence. That whole part of being a tolerant person where you are supposed to tolerate the intolerant? Not a fan. So Praise Jibbers, let's have a beer!