system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I think people who think they shouldn't have to watch ads are immature and self-centered. CMV

With blip.tv recently introducing a 90-seconds-long banner that keeps you from watching the video if you block the video ad (but also long before that), I see loads of people complaining that they shouldn't be subjected to ads.  
I've seen people call blip "elementary school bullies", I came across vehement adblock defendants and I've heard the proposition that we should contact companies and tell them that we won't buy their products *because* they advertise.  
I certainly understand complaints about the way ads work (ads buffering, obnoxious video ads, pop-ups, etc.) and I like the concept of "pay-what-you-deem-appropriate", allowing the fans to eliminate the need for ads (if the content provider is OK with that).  
But some people seem to think that hosting 60 million videos (Youtube) doesn't cost any money at all and this service should not only be free (which it still is), but also ad-free. This is ridiculous (even more than the Piracy argument, because watching an ad takes even less effort than shelling out 5 bucks or more) and would never work in the long run (and barely in the short run).
gpt
It's a principle of lost business.  If you go into a website with the intention of using adblock, you probably don't like ads and don't plan on EVER buying from them, let alone pay attention.  So you were lost business anyway.  Watching the add doesn't make any difference.  Whether you watch the ad or don't watch it, the company hasn't gained a customer, you were always a lost customer.

There's no net gain profit.  People who use adblock aren't within the target demographic of an ad.  An ad has a target demographic of people who will actually look at and listen to said ad.