treetops said:
@milmike
Whats next are we going to try to regulate whats broadcasted on tv in other countries because television was invented in America? Just because something was invented in america doesnt give america the right to regulate it at home or throughout the globe. It reminds me of how freedom of speech applies to everything but our televisions. The fcc is a government appointed group that tells us what we can and can't say on television. As wrong as that is it doesn't extend to other countries.
Speaking of pedophiles, France harbors convicted pedophiles from other countries including the USA. Why does the USA put up with it? Simple no one is losing money. A gambling site in Canada is taking money out of the pockets of the folks in America who run "legal" gambling sites from what las vegas? You can bet this is a result of lobbying (legal bribes) from las vegas big belt sports gambling to your baby kissing politicians.
Anytime the gov appears to make a decision based off lobbying and not logic I tend to be against it.
Try making an argument that DOESN'T rely on logical fallacy.
For anyone interested in what I'm talking about: this is a perfect example of a strawman argument. Rather than address the argument presented, instead of responding to MilMike's argument, Treetops instead created an argument MilMike WASN'T making, but he used PIECES of MilMike's post (constructing a straw man).
MilMike's argument:
.com is a domain for US commercial businesses. ONLY US commercial businesses are allowed to use .com. As a .com website, bodog.com is a US business. THEREFORE, bodog.com is under US jurisdiction regardless of the location of its servers, or the country in which it was registered.
end argument
MilMike then ANECDOTALLY adds that the REASON .com is a US domain is because the internet was started in the US.
Treetops' straw man (what HE says MilMike's argument is): The US invented the internet. Bodog.com is a site on the internet. THEREFORE, bodog.com is under US jurisdiction.
I don't think I have to explain why the second argument would be retarded if it were true, and why that would be a serious threat to the freedom of the internet, but I don't have to, because NO ONE is claiming that the second argument IS true.
I find it hilarious that someone would think such a blatantly fallacious argument would be convincing to anyone.