There's that pesky collective noun again. Again, you labor under a delusion of a shared struggle.
> one can easily point out attempts that have already been made to protect previously established industries.
Such as a company that's raised over a billion dollars seeking to protect its position in a lucrative market by appointing politically well-connected board members? No way!
> I was able to argue back without resorting to name calling.
"Astonishing naiveté."
"delusion of a shared struggle"
"What a meaningless statement."
"Post on your blog if you don't want your opinion torn apart like a piece of meat"
yeah, I reconsidered the wording since 'tool' has a certain connotation that I didn't intend.
I was hoping to be part of the several voices that were telling you you were wrong, because maybe hearing it from lots of people would make it more convincing.
Then perhaps we misunderstand each other. I used those terms to describe (accurately, in my opinion) your opinions, they have nothing to do with you as a person.
Nonsense. The things you say about a persons opinions are still things you say against that person. It just becomes more acceptable in some circles to describe someone as having naive opinions than describing the person as naive.
The best course of action is to leave the emotive language out of the discussion.
There's that pesky collective noun again. Again, you labor under a delusion of a shared struggle.
> one can easily point out attempts that have already been made to protect previously established industries.
Such as a company that's raised over a billion dollars seeking to protect its position in a lucrative market by appointing politically well-connected board members? No way!
> I was able to argue back without resorting to name calling.
And so was I. What's your point?