Taerdin said:
ediblemitten said:
"Thus web shows we like". Connecting yourself to opposition to the bill.
This makes no sense. Just because other people oppose the bill because it might effect their web shows doesn't mean I'm connected to their opposition of the bill if I like their shows. Please think for a moment if this doesn't immediately make sense to you.
ediblemitten said:
whether you like to admit it or not, you do in fact oppose it.
I'm not a fan of it, but I don't speak out against it. Nor have I written any letters, nor do I even live in the country where it is being passed.
ediblemitten said:
Also, notice that the OP never once says that anyone stands against SOPA OFFICIALLY or PUBLICLY because they would no longer be able to effectively pirate.
Sarge034 said:
From what I read it is not even remotely close to the "interwebs is gonna die" legislation that I have been hearing about. Unless, of course, you are a pirate.
Hmm..
ediblemitten said:
Remember, you specifcally stated: "I haven't actually heard anyone stand against SOPA because it hurts pirates". I don't know how many people that oppose it do so because they enjoy the benefits of pirated software, probably many, but none would ever admit (especially not any reputable organization) that they dislike the bill because of pirating. That would horribly undermine any argument made against SOPA by such an organization.
Okay but the outlets that I'm talking about who are against SOPA specifically say that they are no fan of piracy, but merely find the bill to be too broad or set a bad precedent. I don't necessarily agree or share that stance with them.
ediblemitten said:
Maybe your reading comprehension should improve.
Maybe. But you still can't even understand my simple posts and are making up the statements that you want to hear in your brain instead of listening to me. If you actually comprehended what I was saying then I wouldn't have to clarify my meaning to you... twice.
If you still need help comprehending feel free to PM me, there's no need for me to take up so much room in this thread helping you understand.
ediblemitten said:
"You don't have to read the bill to understand the position of the opposition to the bill."
Actually, you do. If you don't, you have no basis for understanding the points being made, and no tools to argue for or against them. You're taking their arguments at face value, bias and all, and have no clue if what your being told is interest group garbage or a legitimate position backed up by facts and passages from the legislation in question.
Actually you don't. I'm not arguing for or against anything, and that is absolutely not what I said at all. I'm not taking their stance as fact or the truth or my belief, I'm simply relaying what they seem to be saying to the OP, who seems to not even understand what they are saying is their position in the first place.
I don't need to know what a watermelon is to understand that a person doesn't like it because of the seeds, nor do I need to know what one is to let someone else know that they don't like it because of the seeds. Knowledge of a watermelon is not the same as knowledge of a person's opinion of watermelons. Sorry I had to resort to an analogy but I thought it might help you understand.
Oh, I understand. Treating me like a child isn't helping your case.
Firstly,
I'm very sorry if I misunderstood your use of the word 'we'. Generally, when one says a sentence like "We like this.", they are connecting themselves to a group of people who also like 'this'. If you had wanted to say that, perhaps, others, and not you like the web shows, perhaps your sentence should have read 'web shows THEY like.' You see, in English, the word 'we' is used to signify that the subject includes the speaker (You) and others. Also, by using we, and expressing a similar reason for disliking SOPA, (that is, that it will take away shows you/they like), you connect yourself, unofficially of course, to their opposition. If I confused your position, apologies.
Secondly,
As soon as you say "I'm not a fan of it", your saying you oppose it. No, seriously, look it up, you do. As said in the previous paragraph, you used 'we', as in 'Myself and others like me.' Let me explain my reasoning:
1.) You like certain web shows. They are an interest of yours.
2.) A new bill will affect these interests negatively.
3.) You are opposed, however unofficially, to the actions undertaken by this bill.
Understand? Even if you're from another country, it's likely that upon reading the implications of the bill, you expressed a dislike for the bill, and thus, an opposition.
Thirdly,
Hmm? Awesome response. You didn't get what I said at all, did you?
The OP says that he believes the real reason that websites/organizations/people dislike SOPA is due to its possible effect on Internet piracy. This can be declared or undeclared. These organizations or people might say that they dislike SOPA for being broad or sweeping, but in reality, and in secret, they dislike SOPA for its effect on piracy. That is what the OP is saying. Whether I agree with him or not, I don't know, but I understand his point.
Lastly,
You KNOW what the opposition to SOPA is. Do you understand it? I would disagree. What if the argument against SOPA was that there was a clause permitting the consuming of the children of pirates by police dogs? A bald faced lie, surely, but you didn't read SOPA, and you have no clue if thats actually a real part of the legislation or made up to rile support. And also, you might be able to rattle off the arguments against SOPA verbatim, but unless you know where those arguments are coming from, and what specific passages they oppose (from the bill) you really don't understand the issue at hand.
Hopefully this explains what issues I had and how I came to my understanding of your posts.
