The problem with the internet.

[Politico]

The problem with the internet is there is no law preventing connections to grandparent's basements.

 

[PredFan]

The problem with the internet is there is no law preventing connections to grandparent's basements.

Lol.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm old enough to have been here and sentient in the times before the internet. I remember when the only place for these kinds of discussions and debates was in what was called "newsgroups".

There was much discussion and anticipation about how access to information would affect society, and political debate. I remember thinking in those days that getting so many opinions from such a large number of people would lead to solving some problems, or at least some changed minds. Yes we were all that naive.

After the World Wide Web, as it was originally called, came into being we found that we could back up our statements with facts from individuals in authority on just about any subject. In this we were right BUT, as it turns out, the individuals in authority most often don't agree.

All branches of science, including the sciences of economics, psychology, history, medicine, and even the "pseudo-sciences" have a multitude of people putting their ideas, opinions, data, theories, and results out on the internet. You can find people in authority, people who have actual degrees in their fields who spount all kinds of ideas.

ANY internet blogger, or messageboard debater can find someone in authority who will back up anything they need. It doesn't matter what your stand is, you can believe in sasquatch and find a scientist who agrees, you can believe in exratereestrial visitation and find the same thing. Ditto with truthers, creationists, global warming believers, and on and on.

Now, my purpose of starting this thread is not to debate any of those topics that have been debated to death (without either side giving an inch), but to discuss whether access to so much information has actually helped anything.

Access to information caused the apocalypse.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I'm old enough to have been here and sentient in the times before the internet. I remember when the only place for these kinds of discussions and debates was in what was called "newsgroups".

There was much discussion and anticipation about how access to information would affect society, and political debate. I remember thinking in those days that getting so many opinions from such a large number of people would lead to solving some problems, or at least some changed minds. Yes we were all that naive.

After the World Wide Web, as it was originally called, came into being we found that we could back up our statements with facts from individuals in authority on just about any subject. In this we were right BUT, as it turns out, the individuals in authority most often don't agree.

All branches of science, including the sciences of economics, psychology, history, medicine, and even the "pseudo-sciences" have a multitude of people putting their ideas, opinions, data, theories, and results out on the internet. You can find people in authority, people who have actual degrees in their fields who spount all kinds of ideas.

ANY internet blogger, or messageboard debater can find someone in authority who will back up anything they need. It doesn't matter what your stand is, you can believe in sasquatch and find a scientist who agrees, you can believe in exratereestrial visitation and find the same thing. Ditto with truthers, creationists, global warming believers, and on and on.

Now, my purpose of starting this thread is not to debate any of those topics that have been debated to death (without either side giving an inch), but to discuss whether access to so much information has actually helped anything.

The fact that you believe that we need authorities rather than figuring things out for ourselves is the real reason this slavish copycat Internet has failed. Anointed experts don't connect the dots, they only collect the dots. Americans are trained to accept the conclusions of experts just because they have collected a lot of facts.

 

[PredFan]

I'm old enough to have been here and sentient in the times before the internet. I remember when the only place for these kinds of discussions and debates was in what was called "newsgroups".

There was much discussion and anticipation about how access to information would affect society, and political debate. I remember thinking in those days that getting so many opinions from such a large number of people would lead to solving some problems, or at least some changed minds. Yes we were all that naive.

After the World Wide Web, as it was originally called, came into being we found that we could back up our statements with facts from individuals in authority on just about any subject. In this we were right BUT, as it turns out, the individuals in authority most often don't agree.

All branches of science, including the sciences of economics, psychology, history, medicine, and even the "pseudo-sciences" have a multitude of people putting their ideas, opinions, data, theories, and results out on the internet. You can find people in authority, people who have actual degrees in their fields who spount all kinds of ideas.

ANY internet blogger, or messageboard debater can find someone in authority who will back up anything they need. It doesn't matter what your stand is, you can believe in sasquatch and find a scientist who agrees, you can believe in exratereestrial visitation and find the same thing. Ditto with truthers, creationists, global warming believers, and on and on.

Now, my purpose of starting this thread is not to debate any of those topics that have been debated to death (without either side giving an inch), but to discuss whether access to so much information has actually helped anything.

Access to information caused the apocalypse.

The apocolypse has already happened?

Damn, I missed it. was it awesome?

 

[PredFan]

I'm old enough to have been here and sentient in the times before the internet. I remember when the only place for these kinds of discussions and debates was in what was called "newsgroups".

There was much discussion and anticipation about how access to information would affect society, and political debate. I remember thinking in those days that getting so many opinions from such a large number of people would lead to solving some problems, or at least some changed minds. Yes we were all that naive.

After the World Wide Web, as it was originally called, came into being we found that we could back up our statements with facts from individuals in authority on just about any subject. In this we were right BUT, as it turns out, the individuals in authority most often don't agree.

All branches of science, including the sciences of economics, psychology, history, medicine, and even the "pseudo-sciences" have a multitude of people putting their ideas, opinions, data, theories, and results out on the internet. You can find people in authority, people who have actual degrees in their fields who spount all kinds of ideas.

ANY internet blogger, or messageboard debater can find someone in authority who will back up anything they need. It doesn't matter what your stand is, you can believe in sasquatch and find a scientist who agrees, you can believe in exratereestrial visitation and find the same thing. Ditto with truthers, creationists, global warming believers, and on and on.

Now, my purpose of starting this thread is not to debate any of those topics that have been debated to death (without either side giving an inch), but to discuss whether access to so much information has actually helped anything.

The fact that you believe that we need authorities rather than figuring things out for ourselves is the real reason this slavish copycat Internet has failed. Anointed experts don't connect the dots, they only collect the dots. Americans are trained to accept the conclusions of experts just because they have collected a lot of facts.

Do you understand what you read? Where exactly did I say that I believed that?

 

[mamooth]

On the one hand, it keeps the cranks busy and off the streets.

On the other, it encourages the escalation of crankdom. It used to be the crank would rave a little at the bar or coffee shop, everyone ignored him, and that was it. Exposure to normal people took the edge off of his crankdom. Now, the crank can find always find a whole pack of fellow cranks online, to egg him on and reinforce his crankdom to ever greater heights.

 

[Desperado]

Now, my purpose of starting this thread is not to debate any of those topics that have been debated to death (without either side giving an inch), but to discuss whether access to so much information has actually helped anything.

The access to so much information on the internet scares the crap out of governments world wide. They do not have control of what is out there and cannot spoon feed their propaganda to the masses anymore.

 

[Unkotare]

On the one hand, it keeps the cranks busy and off the streets.

On the other, it encourages the escalation of crankdom. It used to be the crank would rave a little at the bar or coffee shop, everyone ignored him, and that was it. Exposure to normal people took the edge off of his crankdom. Now, the crank can find always find a whole pack of fellow cranks online, to egg him on and reinforce his crankdom to ever greater heights.

Is that what happened to you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm old enough to have been here and sentient in the times before the internet. I remember when the only place for these kinds of discussions and debates was in what was called "newsgroups".

There was much discussion and anticipation about how access to information would affect society, and political debate. I remember thinking in those days that getting so many opinions from such a large number of people would lead to solving some problems, or at least some changed minds. Yes we were all that naive.

After the World Wide Web, as it was originally called, came into being we found that we could back up our statements with facts from individuals in authority on just about any subject. In this we were right BUT, as it turns out, the individuals in authority most often don't agree.

All branches of science, including the sciences of economics, psychology, history, medicine, and even the "pseudo-sciences" have a multitude of people putting their ideas, opinions, data, theories, and results out on the internet. You can find people in authority, people who have actual degrees in their fields who spount all kinds of ideas.

ANY internet blogger, or messageboard debater can find someone in authority who will back up anything they need. It doesn't matter what your stand is, you can believe in sasquatch and find a scientist who agrees, you can believe in exratereestrial visitation and find the same thing. Ditto with truthers, creationists, global warming believers, and on and on.

Now, my purpose of starting this thread is not to debate any of those topics that have been debated to death (without either side giving an inch), but to discuss whether access to so much information has actually helped anything.

Access to information caused the apocalypse.

The apocolypse has already happened?

Damn, I missed it. was it awesome?

See how stupid your posting is when I boil it down to its basic idiocy?

 

[PredFan]

On the one hand, it keeps the cranks busy and off the streets.

On the other, it encourages the escalation of crankdom. It used to be the crank would rave a little at the bar or coffee shop, everyone ignored him, and that was it. Exposure to normal people took the edge off of his crankdom. Now, the crank can find always find a whole pack of fellow cranks online, to egg him on and reinforce his crankdom to ever greater heights.

And this.

 

[PredFan]

Now, my purpose of starting this thread is not to debate any of those topics that have been debated to death (without either side giving an inch), but to discuss whether access to so much information has actually helped anything.

The access to so much information on the internet scares the crap out of governments world wide. They do not have control of what is out there and cannot spoon feed their propaganda to the masses anymore.

This is one of the things I'm most happy about the internet.

 

[PredFan]

Access to information caused the apocalypse.

The apocolypse has already happened?

Damn, I missed it. was it awesome?

See how stupid your posting is when I boil it down to its basic idiocy?

Nah, you just cannot understand complex concepts. Hey, the world needs people like you to do the heavy lifting so don't worry too much about it.

 

[PrometheusBound]

As far as changing anyone's mind or stand on the issues, maybe not people who are already set in their ways but younger people growing up with the net are definitely shaped by debate and opinions on the net.

You should realize that idealizing the younger generation is a form of pedophilia. From what I've seen, the Millennials are even more hollow and class-dominated than the previous generations.

OLD SCHOOL: Drive /// NEW AGE: Drift
OLD SCHOOL: Math /// NEW AGE: Meth
OLD SCHOOL: Destiny /// NEW AGE: Dust

 

[PrometheusBound]

Social Facts are for the most part just opinions.

That said I think the internet is a great arena for those discussions.

Is it a great arena when the discussion leads to nothing?

For example:

If I agree with Theory X, and you disagree. I provide links to people in authority What is accomplished?

Links are what makes a chain, which holds together a chain gang. Try to support a point by logic instead of borrowing your ideas from the designated pre-owned authorities.

 

[PredFan]

Social Facts are for the most part just opinions.

Is it a great arena when the discussion leads to nothing?

For example:

If I agree with Theory X, and you disagree. I provide links to people in authority What is accomplished?

Links are what makes a chain, which holds together a chain gang. Try to support a point by logic instead of borrowing your ideas from the designated pre-owned authorities.

What I try to do is make the point logically then provide links to supporting documentation. I don't link to blogs and a link is not my whole post. They are not mutually exclusive. One can use logic and reason AND provide links.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I'm old enough to have been here and sentient in the times before the internet. I remember when the only place for these kinds of discussions and debates was in what was called "newsgroups".

There was much discussion and anticipation about how access to information would affect society, and political debate. I remember thinking in those days that getting so many opinions from such a large number of people would lead to solving some problems, or at least some changed minds. Yes we were all that naive.

After the World Wide Web, as it was originally called, came into being we found that we could back up our statements with facts from individuals in authority on just about any subject. In this we were right BUT, as it turns out, the individuals in authority most often don't agree.

All branches of science, including the sciences of economics, psychology, history, medicine, and even the "pseudo-sciences" have a multitude of people putting their ideas, opinions, data, theories, and results out on the internet. You can find people in authority, people who have actual degrees in their fields who spount all kinds of ideas.

ANY internet blogger, or messageboard debater can find someone in authority who will back up anything they need. It doesn't matter what your stand is, you can believe in sasquatch and find a scientist who agrees, you can believe in exratereestrial visitation and find the same thing. Ditto with truthers, creationists, global warming believers, and on and on.

Now, my purpose of starting this thread is not to debate any of those topics that have been debated to death (without either side giving an inch), but to discuss whether access to so much information has actually helped anything.

The fact that you believe that we need authorities rather than figuring things out for ourselves is the real reason this slavish copycat Internet has failed. Anointed experts don't connect the dots, they only collect the dots. Americans are trained to accept the conclusions of experts just because they have collected a lot of facts.

Do you understand what you read? Where exactly did I say that I believed that?

It's like saying that anyone can find someone to drive him, but some drivers are better than others. Why not drive yourself? Do I need an authority to back up the statement that we don't need authorities except as giving ideas to play with that are no better than the ideas we pick up from other posters? In other words, the fact that posters slavishly cite authorities and chain us to links is the real problem, not their choice of authorities that disagree with the other side's authorities, as you claimed.

Originality is a crime on the Internet; this is a copycat medium. I have no respect at all for the way authorities get their positions. It is not the American Way. Class-climbing requires years of slavish obedience and cripples the climber. That is obvious unless you have been educated to lower yourself by looking up to people appointed to high places.

 

[Michelle420]

Is it a great arena when the discussion leads to nothing?

For example:

If I agree with Theory X, and you disagree. I provide links to people in authority What is accomplished?

Links are what makes a chain, which holds together a chain gang. Try to support a point by logic instead of borrowing your ideas from the designated pre-owned authorities.

What I try to do is make the point logically then provide links to supporting documentation. I don't link to blogs and a link is not my whole post. They are not mutually exclusive. One can use logic and reason AND provide links.

What's wrong with blogs ?

 

[PredFan]

The fact that you believe that we need authorities rather than figuring things out for ourselves is the real reason this slavish copycat Internet has failed. Anointed experts don't connect the dots, they only collect the dots. Americans are trained to accept the conclusions of experts just because they have collected a lot of facts.

Do you understand what you read? Where exactly did I say that I believed that?

It's like saying that anyone can find someone to drive him, but some drivers are better than others. Why not drive yourself? Do I need an authority to back up the statement that we don't need authorities except as giving ideas to play with that are no better than the ideas we pick up from other posters? In other words, the fact that posters slavishly cite authorities and chain us to links is the real problem, not their choice of authorities that disagree with the other side's authorities, as you claimed.

Originality is a crime on the Internet; this is a copycat medium. I have no respect at all for the way authorities get their positions. It is not the American Way. Class-climbing requires years of slavish obedience and cripples the climber. That is obvious unless you have been educated to lower yourself by looking up to people appointed to high places.

Again, you don't understand what you read. I said nothing of the kind. Or did you not bother to read the OP?

 

[PredFan]

Links are what makes a chain, which holds together a chain gang. Try to support a point by logic instead of borrowing your ideas from the designated pre-owned authorities.

What I try to do is make the point logically then provide links to supporting documentation. I don't link to blogs and a link is not my whole post. They are not mutually exclusive. One can use logic and reason AND provide links.

What's wrong with blogs ?

Blogs are opinions, usually not by people who are any kind of authority ion the field they are blogging about. Many people use blogs as support for their arguments and that's fine, I just won't.