This is not an ad hominen, it is just an insult.

An ad hominen is when I say your argument is false because you are an ignorant. What I said is that you are an ignorant because your argument is false. Do you understand the distinction?

I did not give any reason why I think your argument is false, not even a fallacious one. I don't think it is even interesting enough to be worth debating.

Your ignorance on basic economics matches well your ignorance about taxation policy. Maybe you should read one or two books on it before embarrassing yourself in public like this?

If you could control updates to your computer, your post would make sense. You would have

Option 1 - No updates
Option 2 - Metered connection, just small and security critical updates
Option 3 - Update at will.

But we live in a world where there is no Option 1, and nobody trusts Microsoft to actually use Option 2 as they claimed.

Obscure? I think it is blinding obvious that who pays Apple's tax (or actually doesn't pay anything) is the consumer that buys Apple's stuff. But charging tax on the level of individuals instead of corporations would be extremely complex, creating even more loopholes and opportunities for people to evade tax. Corporate tax is actually a great idea (there's a reason why almost every single country on Earth charges it), as it allows you to charge tax without imperilling the financial viability of a company, since it falls only on profits.

Oh that's a wonderful deal! So any company that produces fabulous products at prices customers are very willing to pay is now exempt of tax? Please tell that to every other company, because it looks as if only Apple is taking advantage of this New Zealand law.

You live in a fantasy world if you think it is actually possible to change the laws so that megacorps start paying tax. You are directly going against extremely powerful interests. You know, there is a reason why these loopholes are there in the first place.

That's a hollow argument, since it was Apple and other megacorps who bribed the legislators to write this loopholes into the law in the first place. Legal doesn't mean moral.

You're quite right. The CMB is pretty much peaked at microwave frequencies, and you would absolutely be able to detect doppler shifting if you travelled at relativistic speeds with respect to it. For this reason the CMB is often picked up as the preferred reference frame when such a thing is needed: in speculative theories such as Bohmian mechanics, or by the very few sci-fi authors who want to have faster-than-light travel in their stories and know that a preferred reference frame is necessary to avoid problems with causality.

You're just being ridiculous.

You are just repeating over and over again that freedom of speech comes first. Why? Is it for you an absolute value, an end in itself? Then there is no discussion possible, and I'm just wasting my time trying to reason with you.

Re BLM: I'm not searching for it. I asked for a concrete example, it would be nice of you to provide the link.

Come on, wake up, this is not political speech! Only in the sense that the Holocaust was a political decision.

But I just looked NOI up, and it is a clear case of hate speech: they should be punished for spreading this garbage. I don't know, however, what do you mean by hateful speech by BLM members. Care to give a specific example?

You are apparently unacquainted with hate speech, if you think it is a wrong argument that serves a purpose. It is not a wrong argument because it is not even an argument, it is just preaching hatred. Just to give you a concrete example, Geert Wilders was recently convicted of hate speech because he said that Moroccans are scum. How on Earth is this an argument? What possible benefit there can be in listening to this garbage and debating it? How does it make us rationalize and check our beliefs? All it leads to is Moroccans being lynched.

"Moroccans are scum". This is legitimate speech? Seriously? Are you honestly defending that this is a political position that can be debated, that one can criticize one's leaders by saying "Moroccans are scum", that this can have any benefit to society whatsoever?

We know exactly what this kind of speech leads to, because it has happened several times before: race riots, lynching, deportations, pogroms, gulags, concentration camps, gas chambers.

They have been charged (and convicted) because what they said was hate speech. The case that I remember was Geert Wilders being convicted for saying that Moroccans are scum. This is not legitimate speech, this is just preaching hatred. I'm glad he was punished for it.

This Grey Wolf crap is clearly illegal. I'm surprised by your claim that they get away with publishing it. Got any reference?