• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Net effect

F

fast

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
5,293
Location
South Carolina
Basic Beliefs
Christian
You did it.
No, you did it.

No, I didn't.
Well, you might as well have: it had the same net effect.

Yes, the same net effect, but I didn't do it
Well, i certainly didn't do it

Maybe neither of us did
It happened, and it's only us

Perhaps it's not a matter of what we did but instead a matter of what we didnt do
Well, you didn't provide the service

And you didn't pay for it
So maybe we're both to blame

No
Well, you still did it

Nope
You discontinued providing service

That's not doing something: that's no longer doing something
You flipped the switch, so you did do something

That's just the means to stop doing what I was doing
So, you did something and thus it's your fault

I did something, but the consequence wasn't the continuation of something (but rather the discontinuation of something.)
The net effect (again) is a consequence of your action: YOU took it away

No, I didn't TAKE anything: I just no longer provide it
And so we no longer get it: you DID something

No, you didn't do something, so now I no longer do what I did: not doing something is not the same as doing: that's abstaining from doing something.
But you admitted to flipping the switch

So, you want me to admit to doing something which was the discontinuation of doing something?
Isn't that something?

Did turner do something?
Did dish network do something?

They stopped providing ...
They took it away...

Did they
Yes

No
Yes

They stopped doing what they were doing
They decided and acted on that decision

To no longer do what they were doing
So, they did something

There were actions, but like the switch, they were a means to no longer do something
There's still the net effect!

And the net effect isn't what was done: don't confuse the lack of action with the effect of no longer acting
 
Did they sign their names on a proper contract or anything?

Ah, that may be why.
EB
 
gmbteach said:
I have read this through a couple of times - what on earth are those concerned on about? What is the net effect?
Click to expand...
According to an online source:
"The final result when all the pluses and minuses, all the gains and losses, have been taken into account. "Net" in this case means a calculated total after deductions, like your net pay.

Example: When Bob had dieted and exercised vigorously all week, and then pigged out at the barbecue, the net effect was a gain of one pound."

If I decide to no longer provide my wife with a newspaper and she complains that I have taken something from her, I might argue that I have not taken anything but instead chosen to no longer provide something. She may in turn argue that it has the same net effect: that she is no longer getting the paper. Yes, it's an ultimate consequence of my decision to no longer pay for the paper, but am I indeed guilty of "taking"? That was just an example ... I'm not stupid: I would never do such a thing (or, um, stop doing such a thing).

This boils down to what one might refer to as the blame game. People have a knack for twisting things when blaming others. Consider the Turner and Dish Network ordeal. One blames the other while the other blames the one. Did Dish take away CNN from its viewership?

Language has evolved such that even if they didn't literally take something away but instead chose to no longer provide what they did but no longer do, it's apparently acceptable among speakers to treat an inaction as an action. For instance, can you take away your teens phone privileges? I can take your phone from you. That's something I can do, but is taking away a privilege really and truly the taking of something, or is it the no longer granting of something. Yes, yes, yes, it may have the same net effect, as either way, she can no longer use the phone, but the distinction between doing x and not doing x still stands as a worthy distinction despite whatever net effect that might become of either the action or inaction.

We may not care when the net effect is the same, but the blame game of who is or is not at fault for viewers no longer being able to watch CNN through DishNetwork seems to muddle the truth of their allegations. Sure, they (both Turner and DN) may not have come to a mutual agreement, but did Turner flip the switch, or did DN? Awe, but it may not matter, as what may be more important is who is no longer doing what? If it's the case that both are no longer doing something (as opposed to doing something), then perhaps the allegations are not spot-on.
 
fast said:
gmbteach said:
I have read this through a couple of times - what on earth are those concerned on about? What is the net effect?
Click to expand...
According to an online source:
"The final result when all the pluses and minuses, all the gains and losses, have been taken into account. "Net" in this case means a calculated total after deductions, like your net pay.

Example: When Bob had dieted and exercised vigorously all week, and then pigged out at the barbecue, the net effect was a gain of one pound."

If I decide to no longer provide my wife with a newspaper and she complains that I have taken something from her, I might argue that I have not taken anything but instead chosen to no longer provide something. She may in turn argue that it has the same net effect: that she is no longer getting the paper. Yes, it's an ultimate consequence of my decision to no longer pay for the paper, but am I indeed guilty of "taking"? That was just an example ... I'm not stupid: I would never do such a thing (or, um, stop doing such a thing).

This boils down to what one might refer to as the blame game. People have a knack for twisting things when blaming others. Consider the Turner and Dish Network ordeal. One blames the other while the other blames the one. Did Dish take away CNN from its viewership?

Language has evolved such that even if they didn't literally take something away but instead chose to no longer provide what they did but no longer do, it's apparently acceptable among speakers to treat an inaction as an action. For instance, can you take away your teens phone privileges? I can take your phone from you. That's something I can do, but is taking away a privilege really and truly the taking of something, or is it the no longer granting of something. Yes, yes, yes, it may have the same net effect, as either way, she can no longer use the phone, but the distinction between doing x and not doing x still stands as a worthy distinction despite whatever net effect that might become of either the action or inaction.

We may not care when the net effect is the same, but the blame game of who is or is not at fault for viewers no longer being able to watch CNN through DishNetwork seems to muddle the truth of their allegations. Sure, they (both Turner and DN) may not have come to a mutual agreement, but did Turner flip the switch, or did DN? Awe, but it may not matter, as what may be more important is who is no longer doing what? If it's the case that both are no longer doing something (as opposed to doing something), then perhaps the allegations are not spot-on.
Click to expand...

Thank you..
 
I reply in a cinquain form devised by American poet Adelaide Crapsey: five lines, 2,4,6,8,2 syllables.
"I think
"Therefore I am,"
Said the philosopher.
He not feel. The net effect? He
Half was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom