Not a logical fallacy if it's politically convenient to progressives?

[TheContrarian]

Only it seemed as if you were almost suggesting the Beeb was unusual and had an unusual responsibility since it is funded involuntarily through tax; when of course all media is funded by everyone through advertising without personal choice. Certainly you have no choice but to fund the moderate and honest BBC as well as the raving lunacy of Rupert Murdock and co. Interesting that the first seems to be the only one you care about but hey.

You genuinely don't have a clue do you?

Not only are there ways to avoid receiving adverts, but the money paid to air them isn't coming out of your pocket (unless you're actually paying a subscription to some TV service which again is OPTIONAL).

Just by the act of owning a TV and any means of making it display programming (so freeview, which has no subsciption fees attached) is enough to incur an involuntary fee to support the BBC even if I want nothing to do with the content they produce.

It's a racket pure and simple.

There is indeed no way to avoid paying for advertising, no way at all, since it is funded through increases in the price of the advertised products. Advertisers get to distort the market in their favour and keep out innovative, enterprising new companies that can do their job better*, and Murdock gets to make up a pack of lies with impunity and you get to act smug. Everyone's happy except sensible people.

And you're forced to buy these products that are being advertised?  They're literally just sending them to you along with an invoice whether you want them or not? 

No?  Well it's a fucking stupid comparison then eh?

But even worse than that, the analogy would be more like being forced to pay for a competitor's running costs (advertising included) when you instead opt to buy another brand of something.

It is, as I said before, a racket.  Nothing more.

[Lt. Fred]

Only it seemed as if you were almost suggesting the Beeb was unusual and had an unusual responsibility since it is funded involuntarily through tax; when of course all media is funded by everyone through advertising without personal choice. Certainly you have no choice but to fund the moderate and honest BBC as well as the raving lunacy of Rupert Murdock and co. Interesting that the first seems to be the only one you care about but hey.

You genuinely don't have a clue do you?

Not only are there ways to avoid receiving adverts, but the money paid to air them isn't coming out of your pocket (unless you're actually paying a subscription to some TV service which again is OPTIONAL).

Just by the act of owning a TV and any means of making it display programming (so freeview, which has no subsciption fees attached) is enough to incur an involuntary fee to support the BBC even if I want nothing to do with the content they produce.

It's a racket pure and simple.

There is indeed no way to avoid paying for advertising, no way at all, since it is funded through increases in the price of the advertised products. Advertisers get to distort the market in their favour and keep out innovative, enterprising new companies that can do their job better*, and Murdock gets to make up a pack of lies with impunity and you get to act smug. Everyone's happy except sensible people.

And you're forced to buy these products that are being advertised?

Nor are you forced to buy a TV or earn income, so you can immediately shut up.

[TheContrarian]

Only it seemed as if you were almost suggesting the Beeb was unusual and had an unusual responsibility since it is funded involuntarily through tax; when of course all media is funded by everyone through advertising without personal choice. Certainly you have no choice but to fund the moderate and honest BBC as well as the raving lunacy of Rupert Murdock and co. Interesting that the first seems to be the only one you care about but hey.

You genuinely don't have a clue do you?

Not only are there ways to avoid receiving adverts, but the money paid to air them isn't coming out of your pocket (unless you're actually paying a subscription to some TV service which again is OPTIONAL).

Just by the act of owning a TV and any means of making it display programming (so freeview, which has no subsciption fees attached) is enough to incur an involuntary fee to support the BBC even if I want nothing to do with the content they produce.

It's a racket pure and simple.

There is indeed no way to avoid paying for advertising, no way at all, since it is funded through increases in the price of the advertised products. Advertisers get to distort the market in their favour and keep out innovative, enterprising new companies that can do their job better*, and Murdock gets to make up a pack of lies with impunity and you get to act smug. Everyone's happy except sensible people.

And you're forced to buy these products that are being advertised?

Nor are you forced to buy a TV or earn income, so you can immediately shut up.

It's not the act of buying the TV that incurs the charge any more.  Since they turned off the analog signal you need to separately purchase the means to receive a digital TV signal.  OR streaming live TV from the internet.

But even if you have no interest in purchasing the BBC's products, you are thus forced to support them.
No matter how hard you try and twist it, there's no comparison with anything in the free market.

[Canadian Mojo]

If you look at Gallipoli and Anzio I'm not sure how you can conclude that Churchill gave much of a shit about the lives anybody if sacrifices had to be made for the sake of the empire.

Gallipoli wasn't actually Churchill's idea.  Yes, he was the one who suggested attacking the Dardanelles, but his plan was very different.  While he did make mistakes, you really can't lay all (or even most) of the blame at his feet, since he really didn't have much control over how the campaign went.

It was the same basic deal with Anzio.  Churchill got much of the blame for something that wasn't entirely his fault.  There were other problems, such as flawed intelligence and dithering commanders.  While he was more responsible for what happened at Anzio than at Gallipoli, the other factors have to be considered.  Besides, Anzio was nowhere near as bad as Gallipoli.  It was a victory, for one thing, and there were far fewer casualties.

And how exactly does that change his willingness to sacrifice pawns people for the empire?

Do you honestly expect him to not make sacrifices in a World War?

I think that you are perhaps missing the point I was trying to make. There was a famine in India and Churchill chose to withhold aid because letting a bunch of people starve was an acceptable sacrifice for the good of the empire as far as he was concerned. Whether he knew how bad it was or not, he was not going to put the welfare of a bunch of colonial subjects ahead of Real Englishmen. To him, a ship loaded with food not headed towards England was a waste.

[Lt. Fred]

Only it seemed as if you were almost suggesting the Beeb was unusual and had an unusual responsibility since it is funded involuntarily through tax; when of course all media is funded by everyone through advertising without personal choice. Certainly you have no choice but to fund the moderate and honest BBC as well as the raving lunacy of Rupert Murdock and co. Interesting that the first seems to be the only one you care about but hey.

You genuinely don't have a clue do you?

Not only are there ways to avoid receiving adverts, but the money paid to air them isn't coming out of your pocket (unless you're actually paying a subscription to some TV service which again is OPTIONAL).

Just by the act of owning a TV and any means of making it display programming (so freeview, which has no subsciption fees attached) is enough to incur an involuntary fee to support the BBC even if I want nothing to do with the content they produce.

It's a racket pure and simple.

There is indeed no way to avoid paying for advertising, no way at all, since it is funded through increases in the price of the advertised products. Advertisers get to distort the market in their favour and keep out innovative, enterprising new companies that can do their job better*, and Murdock gets to make up a pack of lies with impunity and you get to act smug. Everyone's happy except sensible people.

And you're forced to buy these products that are being advertised?

Nor are you forced to buy a TV or earn income, so you can immediately shut up.

It's not the act of buying the TV that incurs the charge any more.  Since they turned off the analog signal you need to separately purchase the means to receive a digital TV signal.  OR streaming live TV from the internet.

But even if you have no interest in purchasing the BBC's products, you are thus forced to support them.
No matter how hard you try and twist it, there's no comparison with anything in the free market.

Except every other media product that has ever existed, sure.

Edit: Actually, there might be one: CNN in the late 80s, early 90s. Which was broke.