# "I Hope SOPA Passes"



## hkz8000 (Jan 19, 2012)

A unique perspective on bills like SOPA

http://maddox.xmission.com/

IMO he does make quite a valid point


----------



## Wizerzak (Jan 19, 2012)

While I agree that we need to do just more than protest at every law that comes up I do not agree that the protest did not achieve anything. If we hadn't protested it would have almost certainly passed which is proof that something DID happen as a result of our actions.

If we need to 'inconvenience ourselves' in order to protest properly then why not do something take requires very little effort but still helps AT THE SAME TIME? What's stopping us from 'acting effectively' AND protesting? Nothing. More importantly, if we do not do these short term actions, then by the time our 'boycotts' have actually taken effect 5 more laws will have passed anyway. This guys argument against the protest is obviously flawed, he needs to take a step back and look at what we actually achieved, even if it is only a short term progress.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Jan 19, 2012)

hkz8000 said:


> A unique perspective on bills like SOPA
> 
> http://maddox.xmission.com/
> 
> *IMO he does make quite a valid point*



No, he doesn't. Why would you agree with an argument made by one of the oldest trolls on the Internet?


----------



## Thesolcity (Jan 19, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> hkz8000 said:
> 
> 
> > A unique perspective on bills like SOPA
> ...



Reading through, it seems like they're anti-SOPA but sick to hell of slacktivists. I just skimmed though, the contrast hurt my eyes.


----------



## Yoni Arousement (Jan 19, 2012)

"Hey, let's waste our times trying to prevent piracy!"


----------



## Youkai (Jan 19, 2012)

Well dunno, 
I don't like what they are doing still it only annoys us users when pages like wikipedia just go blank to show they do not like SOPA ...
the guys behind all this shit might not even know how to surf the internet anyways -.-V

just friking annoying to have many pages blacked out and everywhere only infos about how bad this all is while its currently still "only" an American problem.
Ok if other countrys see that it works in America they might try to copy it but currently we cannot do anything anyways ...

do you really thing some American politician is interesten in what european web users think ? maybe if the politicians as well say what they do in America is shit but that wouldn't happen cuz they are all to scared to say something like that so for everyone outside the US this is completely stupid and unnecessary -.-V


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Jan 19, 2012)

Or to put it more simply, "A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves", as Edward Murrow put it.


----------



## Veho (Jan 19, 2012)

mysticwaterfall said:


> Or to put it more simply, "A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves", as Edward Murrow put it.


And what kind of nation begets a government of spineless, conniving weasels?


----------



## Joe88 (Jan 19, 2012)

as soon as I saw the link was maddox, didnt even bother clicking on it
I know its filled with his typical troll bs


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Jan 19, 2012)

Thesolcity said:


> TwinRetro said:
> 
> 
> > hkz8000 said:
> ...



In that point, I agree. Luckily I can visit Mr. Harry Reid on a daily basis until either A.) He drops support for the bill, or B.) He files a restraining order against me.
I also have a stack of letters that i'll be sending out on a daily basis. Along with the phone calls, this guy is going to get real sick of me real soon.


----------



## hkz8000 (Jan 19, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> hkz8000 said:
> 
> 
> > A unique perspective on bills like SOPA
> ...



I see where you're coming from. He does have major flaws in his arguments however i do believe that people should, instead of changing their facebook profile pictures and thinking they've done everything they can to stop SOPA, should instead focus more on directly contacting senators who support SOPA.
Anyway, i hope you give Harry Reid hell


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jan 19, 2012)

Slacktivism is not necessarily ineffective. Even something as lazy as changing your Facebook picture can server to raise awareness of an issue. Awareness is probably the single most significant factor in any protest.


----------



## DJPlace (Jan 19, 2012)

ITT: i get pissed off. seroulsy if this is a troll topic GTFO or move it toe EOF!!

edit SOPA+ A PIECE OF SHIT!!


----------



## The Milkman (Jan 19, 2012)

His message is good, americas last REAL protest was in the early 80s I think (im not old enough to know for sure), but it has become a nation of slackers who just sit by and let the government carry on with what ever they want, its disgusting. And it is quite sad that the only reason this is getting SO big is because its been so deeply hardwired into our lives, no matter what anyone says the internet to me is still at its most basic a form of entertainment. They take your guns, take your wives, and you lay back helplessly. They take your "magic box" we spring into action. Pittiful to me.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jan 19, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> no matter what anyone says the internet to me is still at its most basic a form of entertainment


I could not disagree more. The Internet is useful for many things, including entertainment. It is, from its very creation, a means of sharing information.


----------



## Jasper07 (Jan 19, 2012)

Still, my internet in Europe gets cencored by America.
not cool.


----------



## nando (Jan 19, 2012)

internet is not useless. just look at what happened in egypt.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Jan 19, 2012)

nando said:


> internet is not useless. just look at what is *happening in the Middle East and Northern Africa*



FTFY


----------



## hkz8000 (Jan 19, 2012)

I take back what i said
http://www.vg247.com...-yield-results/


----------



## DigitalDeviant (Jan 19, 2012)

the medicine in this case is worse than the disease.


----------



## nando (Jan 19, 2012)

but really we should protest to kick off this assholes off their jobs instead of just stopping their bills. the cancer is still there


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Jan 19, 2012)

nando said:


> but really we should protest to kick off this assholes off their jobs instead of just stopping their bills. the cancer is still there



Any politician with a brain has realized supporting these bills are political suicide at this point.


----------



## GreatZimkogway (Jan 19, 2012)

I saw the link, saw "maddox", and immediately thought I'd regret clicking that link.  For the first time with something involving *Maddox* of all people, I can say that it's at least worth the read. 

He brings up plenty of good points, many of which I agree on.  But he's narrow-sighted in this.  The *internet*, a non-physical but still very real existence, is what protested SOPA.  Not the general public, not your neighbors(in most cases), not your family(in many cases).  As they've shown time and time again, they don't care about things like this.  To them, the internet is still a toy.  Still a triviality.  He thinks that SOPA passing would've done something.  Maybe he's right.  But I don't think so.  Because that's exactly the problem...slacktivism is easier than activism. 

_"Would you take time off your job to go to Washington(DC) to protest?"_ This is fine and all, but think of how many of these protesters are underage minors.  Or people who don't have a way to get the Washington DC to protest.  Or cannot take time off, because they'll be fired if they do.  Or perhaps even because *they have a family to feed*.  Or don't have the money to go.  Maybe these are all excuses, but they are very real excuses, and very common ones that people cannot get around. 

_"Boycott companies that supported it?"_ He says it himself, the list of companies supporting SOPA/PIPA is long.  And sometimes nearly impossible to boycott(let's not be redundant and bring up the whole "The public doesn't give a flying hoot" argument, even though it applies here as well.)  Some examples from his list:


Spoiler



Adobe - Used by people daily, in most cases there is no alternative, and thus they *must* use Adobe's products.​Apple - iPhone, iPad, iPod, Mac.  Enough said, once you have one, there's likely no alternative that is immediately a solution.​Dell - How many people still own a Dell computer today?  Or plan to buy one anytime soon?​Mastercard and Visa - *Hahahahahahaha, yeah good luck with this one.  Boycotting this is not going to happen.  It's just about completely impossible.*​Microsoft - Good luck getting the people off LIVE to help.  Good.  Luck.  And then Windows.  In almost every case, there is not a decent solution to substitute Windows.  Linux can, but face it, Linux is not user-friendly.  Nor is anything in it that well known.  So no, Microsoft won't be boycotted.Nevermind, they don't support it anymore.  But I'll leave it here as point anyway.​Symantec - Can we just outright kill them, please?  Norton isn't helping anything...​CBS Corporation - Gooooood luck getting people from supporting them.​Comcast - Hey Maddox, ever hear of something called a contract?  This is not going to get boycotted, for a lot of reasons.  One of which is that in some places, Comcast is the only available internet option.  Now are you *really* going to be cut off from the internet like that, and have to rely on the already corrupted mainstream media?​CVS Caremark - Is this the same CVS that has as many stores as Walgreens does?  Why are they supporting this again?​ESPN - Good luck.  Seriously.  Good luck getting the sports-freaks to boycott this.  They'll likely never even know.​Harley-Davidson - I mention this because a member of my family works there.  Jobs.​Marvel - *Good luck, and may the Force be with you.*​MLB, NFL, NBA - See ESPN.​Sony Music, Sony Pictures - Why are they supporting yet Sony Computer isn't...​Disney - Am I getting redundant yet?​Viacom - With the sheer amount of crap they have, I don't think they're boycottable...​Time Warner, Inc. - Same thing with Comcast.​UFC, WWE- ...It's wrestling.  Don't matter enough.​Xerox - This one is *not* going to get boycotted.​Warner Music - Is this one possible?​


_"Knock on this dickhead's door and ask him why he introduced such shitty legislation?"_ (Lamar Smith (R-TX) This one would be funny if we could actually pull it off...and not get everyone arrested for it.  Besides, we already know why he did.  He got paid to do it.  This is the USA, after all.  Land of Free Corporations to Control You.

_"Make sure none of these losers get elected ever again?"_ -insert is list here- This one...might be possible, but I direct you back to the whole "General Public" thing.

I think we need a new way to do this.  Because if the public isn't going to help(US public, I suppose I should say), then I think it's out of their hands.  Someone needs to find a new way for this to work, or nothing ever will change.   


That said, I agree that stopping SOPA right now means almost nothing at all.


----------



## The Milkman (Jan 20, 2012)

Blood Fetish said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > no matter what anyone says the internet to me is still at its most basic a form of entertainment
> ...


To me there's too many other ways to share info and communicate to say the internet is really required for these things, Im not saying its ONLY use is entertainment but what its turned into is more of a median for sharing entertaining content rather then information or better yet, practical information.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Jan 20, 2012)

There's an addendum to the page, today. (for those who haven't looked at it again)


----------



## jing90 (Jan 20, 2012)

so who exactly is Maddox?


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Jan 20, 2012)

jing90 said:


> so who exactly is Maddox?



That's like asking who The Beatles are.


----------



## jing90 (Jan 20, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> jing90 said:
> 
> 
> > so who exactly is Maddox?
> ...


well sorry I don't know a person that isn't famous in my country...
anyway I've searched him on wikipedia and there isn't much about him...


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jan 20, 2012)

Maddox is the original www troll. He's been doing articles like this for probably around 15 years.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jan 21, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> Blood Fetish said:
> 
> 
> > Zantigo said:
> ...



What are you, 12?!?

So basically, the modern world can run off of phones, fax and remote control? There's many ways to store information, but the best way to share it is through the internet, bar none. That's like saying you'd ship the whole library of congress on a cargo ship rather than search the internet. Are you off your rocker?!?

Why do you think most workplaces use e-mails? Why people even flock to twitter? How do you think most information is synced up nowadays?

And to say it's more of a median for sharing entertainment is ridiculous. That's what television and radio is for, in case you don't know.

The internet requires input, so what it becomes is largely how the user uses it. Apparently, you only use it for entertainment, thus, your argument.

I won't even nitpick anymore; this is just downright ridiculous. Now I get why they say people don't realize they have more computing power than it took NASA to put a man on the moon - they don't friggin' know what it's there for.

FFS.



Good thing this SOPA BS got trashed. For now, anyway.


----------



## Veho (Jan 21, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> jing90 said:
> 
> 
> > so who exactly is Maddox?
> ...


No, it really isn't. The Beatles are one of the best, most popular and most influential groups ever. Maddox is an inconsequential internet troll. It's perfectly normal to not know who he is.



Zantigo said:


> To me there's too many other ways to share info and communicate to say the internet is really required for these things


Of course there are. There's letters. Newspapers. Billboards. Longwave radio. Wireless telegraph. Carrier pigeons. Semaphore. Yodelling. Word of mouth. Runners. Monted courriers. The Pony Express. Pneumatic tubes. Smoke signals. Clay tablets. There are _so many_ ways to share information that aren't related to the internet.


----------



## FireGrey (Jan 21, 2012)

The people who make movies and games make too much money that comes out of our pockets, piracy is just giving a tiny slice back to us.


----------



## exangel (Jan 21, 2012)

Veho said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > To me there's too many other ways to share info and communicate to say the internet is really required for these things
> ...


You made me think of this blog I read a while back.
http://gaijinchronic...6/16/unplugged/


----------



## The Milkman (Jan 23, 2012)

Shinigami357 said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > Blood Fetish said:
> ...


Wouldn't a 12 year old be the one saying that the internet is the only form of communication? 

Anyway, My point to all is not that I don't think the internet isnt the BEST way of doing it, I think its replaceable. I mean it only REALLY became publicly widespread in the 90s and it really sucked back then. The same can be said for automobiles. People got as far as they did with horses, wagons, bikes and boats. Same could be said for the internet.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 23, 2012)

I am not one to be in favor of piracy, but SOPA is true power abuse and is truly an assault on something we use everyday. Yes it would be nice to do something about massive piracy, but taking over the internet and threatening to shut down sites because they don't like it is truly uncalled for and should not happen. SOPA doesn't just effect piracy, they could shut down a whole site just because I posted a scene from a movie, that's uncalled for.


----------



## Koumori_Knight (Jan 23, 2012)

Interesting point he raises...
Just not very forward thinking. The thing that I see is that he doesn't account for the general public and its ability to raise an unholy stink with only a little knowledge and intent.
He is right, stop the corruption by not electing corrupt people. That won't fix things once they are elected as they have been in this situation.
As @alunral mentioned earlier, it might be effective to boycott the offending companies, but he proved pretty clearly that it is quite difficult.
I dont think its impossible though, you just have to pick which ones to boycott.
In any event, the main problem with his rant is that he comes off far too angry and unwilling to recognize other peoples needs.
it makes me think of all of the extremist (insert any one here).


----------



## Forstride (Jan 23, 2012)

FireGrey said:


> The people who make movies and games make too much money that comes out of our pockets, piracy is just giving a tiny slice back to us.


This has got to be the dumbest thing I've read all week.

I can't even form some kind of argument...My brain has melted away from seeing such stupidity.


----------



## Hells Malice (Jan 23, 2012)

FireGrey said:


> The people who make movies and games make too much money that comes out of our pockets, piracy is just giving a tiny slice back to us.



Yeah, a bunch of guys sitting around while a game develops itself definitely don't deserve our money.

Now hell, if they actually, y'know, WORKED and designed the game then maybe it wo-
oh wait.


how could you possible type something so stupid and then _actually_ hit post.


----------



## coolness (Jan 23, 2012)

haters gonna hate


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jan 23, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> **snippety-snip-snip**
> 
> Wouldn't a 12 year old be the one saying that the internet is the only form of communication?
> 
> Anyway, My point to all is not that I don't think the internet isnt the BEST way of doing it, I think its replaceable. I mean it only REALLY became publicly widespread in the 90s and it really sucked back then. The same can be said for automobiles. People got as far as they did with horses, wagons, bikes and boats. Same could be said for the internet.



LOL so because it's recent it can be replaced? Planes [modern planes, mind you, the jet-engine ones] and Communicaion Satellites aren't exactly old either, think we could live without them, too?

Don't fucking give me that BS explanation. Just because you're used to it now doesn't mean it's just another convenience you can ever-so-casually declare as replaceable.

And isn't the point of the internet is that it's growing? So basically, it's ok to just cut off the exponential growth of the internet because some people think they're entitled to it? What kind of fucked up thinking is that?

You're saying a technology less than a quarter of a century old is replaceable because... um... what was your reason again? Because it's new and it sucked before?

Wow. Quit the internet, please. FFS


----------



## exangel (Jan 23, 2012)

Shinigami357 said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't a 12 year old be the one saying that the internet is the only form of communication?
> ...


*Blink*
The world turned just fine without all that stuff... and being closely involved with the internet since the very explosion of the Web itself... I sincerely *know* that just because there would be a lot of casualties (both literally and figuratively speaking) without those things you mention, it doesn't mean that technology is something that has eliminated mankind's capability to operate on the lesser pre-existing forms.

In fact--
It would be easier in the present day to communicate without the internet because world languages have been homogenizing over the past 100 and especially 30-50 years, meaning that there are fewer spoken/written languages present in the human race now than before the instant communication forms that have been available since before you were even conceived.

If _merely_ disintegrating the internet was on the table, but we still had (LANDLINE) phones and (NON-JET) transportation, it would be a major hurdle only for the FIRST WORLD population to adjust (the wealthy would be able to afford a massive spike in postage & phone costs, but then there would be a massive demand for postal and phone employees to balance THAT out..)
but the communication tool, though seen as integral to turning the moment-to-moment events of people of the "entire world", isn't even accessible to (or used by) _most of it_ even at this time ANYWAY.  for second and third-worlders, they would return to forms they used before mainstream access to the internet *even more easily.*


----------



## The Milkman (Jan 23, 2012)

Shinigami357 said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > **snippety-snip-snip**
> ...


Pretty much yeah other then most medical practices almost everything we've done in the pass saaayy 50 years we could live without


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jan 23, 2012)

FireGrey said:


> The people who make movies and games make too much money that comes out of our pockets, piracy is just giving a tiny slice back to us.




too much money?..indeed. enough to buy out the government.


----------



## Veho (Jan 23, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> Pretty much yeah other then most medical practices almost everything we've done in the pass saaayy 50 years we could live without


If we're going to exclude modern medicine, why stop at only fifty years? Why not a hundred? Or a thousand?


----------



## The Milkman (Jan 23, 2012)

Veho said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much yeah other then most medical practices almost everything we've done in the pass saaayy 50 years we could live without
> ...


Not medicine. Practices, as in how doctors and such actually heal, if we cut out a hundred years we would be flooded with infant mortality. But, anyother technologies are replaceable. Just because things are easier with it doesn't mean we need it to live, especially in the case of the internet.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jan 23, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> Pretty much yeah other then most medical practices almost everything we've done in the pass saaayy 50 years we could live without


Ugh. Sure, if your definition of "life" is literally just not being dead then we could live without a lot of stuff. For most (everyone?) else on Earth, the _quality_ of life is also quite important.


----------



## The Milkman (Jan 23, 2012)

Blood Fetish said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much yeah other then most medical practices almost everything we've done in the pass saaayy 50 years we could live without
> ...


You know... its becoming apparent that I'm either debating with trolls or you people just refuse to read what I post.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jan 23, 2012)

Perhaps multiple people are all refusing to read what you posted. Perhaps it is you who are not properly articulating your thoughts.


----------



## Veho (Jan 23, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> Not medicine. Practices, as in how doctors and such actually heal, if we cut out a hundred years we would be flooded with infant mortality.


Medicine: the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease. Medicine.


----------



## The Milkman (Jan 23, 2012)

Blood Fetish said:


> Perhaps multiple people are all refusing to read what you posted. Perhaps it is you who are not properly articulating your thoughts.


So your telling me that you cannot enjoy your life if you never used the internet? The definition for life is basically not being dead. You do not breathe the internet. You do not consume the internet. You do not need the internet to live. What I am saying is you dont need it, your saying quality of life depends on it. If were going to debate over quality then thats a whole nother subject. Im getting the impression that your just arguing for the sake of arguing. Theres nothing here im saying that doesnt make sense. Its one thing for you to disagree with me because my opinion breaks down to basic logic. Its another to say this basic logic is wrong. If you simply cant understand reason then its your problem.



Veho said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > Not medicine. Practices, as in how doctors and such actually heal, if we cut out a hundred years we would be flooded with infant mortality.
> ...



Is this supposed to be proving a point other then mine?


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jan 23, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> What I am saying is you dont need it, your saying quality of life depends on it.


I did not say that a person's quality of life is dependent upon the Internet. Quality is not a binary proposition. Things can add or subtract from it. The Internet, like many relatively recent inventions, adds greatly to the quality of life for many people on Earth.

I definitely think there is a communication breakdown occurring here.


----------



## The Milkman (Jan 23, 2012)

Blood Fetish said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > What I am saying is you dont need it, your saying quality of life depends on it.
> ...


Yeah, I misunderstood that statement, and edited my post accordingly. But still I am not talking about quality of life here, in fact, thats off topic. My point is simple. You dont need the internet. Thats a flat-out fact. I feel its become a form of entertainment. Thats my opinion. Are you really trying to argue with a fact or my opinion? If you are trying to argue with a opinion then im really missing your point, and im pretty sure your smart enough not to argue with a fact.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jan 24, 2012)

exangel said:


> If _merely_ disintegrating the internet was on the table, but we still had (LANDLINE) phones and (NON-JET) transportation, it would be a major hurdle only for the FIRST WORLD population to adjust (the wealthy would be able to afford a massive spike in postage & phone costs, but then there would be a massive demand for postal and phone employees to balance THAT out..)
> but the communication tool, though seen as integral to turning the moment-to-moment events of people of the "entire world", isn't even accessible to (or used by) _most of it_ even at this time ANYWAY.  for second and third-worlders, they would return to forms they used before mainstream access to the internet *even more easily.*




Oh? And you know this because... You're in a third-world country?

Yeah, which one of use lives in the US and which one lives in some far-off South-East Asian Archipelago again?

Let me reiterate again, how much of our information is stored inside computers or servers or whatever the hell they use nowadays. Now, as I understand it, communication, in every sense of the word, is the transfer of information. i.e. not merely word of mouth.

Therefore, operating beyond that basic assumption, most of the information flow around the world would perhaps not screech to a grinding halt, but it will slow down beyond what you might think. Some [going back to my "ship the whole library of congress" metaphor] would be damn near impossible.

Furthermore, the internet provides us more than one way to communicate. A phone is, as the name suggests, a phonetic device. The internet can transmit information phonetically [sound files], visually [images, text, video] or by raw data [program, code etc]. It's not just ease and availability, it's versatility.

Also, coming back to your misguided attempt at the "first-world/third-world" analogy.  Pardon me for saying, but you have no clue what you're saying.

First off, while it is true that our connections and internet speeds in here are negligible in comparison to yours, the fact is, we still are connected. Just because we have less of it doesn't mean we need it any less than you. That's a very narrow-minded view.

Second, the truth is actually the reverse of what you are saying. Over here, a lot of people work abroad, and that's really another discussion. The fact is, the way most of us connect to those people far off is through the internet. Calling long-distance is too friggin' expensive for people working their asses off.

Third, the internet is actually a replacement of sorts to the things that our third-world country cannot give us. As I'm typing this, my browser has capabilities to search Google, Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster [writers need their dictionaries, by God] and whatever other site I wish, with a few clicks. Our public libraries can scarce compete with that. I've learned a lot of things off the internet I was not taught in our school systems.


----------



## exangel (Jan 24, 2012)

Shinigami357 said:


> Oh? And you know this because... You're in a third-world country?
> 
> Yeah, which one of use lives in the US and which one lives in some far-off South-East Asian Archipelago again?


I know this because common sense tells me that people who don't have electricty or sewer infrastructure don't have to worry about the internet.

I simply CBA to go line by line to address how wrong you are.
For what it's worth I visited the Philippines before you were even born because I have family there.

It's pointless for you to explain to me what capabilities the internet has, I'm quite well aware of how it's developed over time because I've been doing basic administration on it since 1997.  If you want proof that I've been as a minimum, a webmaster since 1998, the registration WHOIS data for noun.org is evidence. (Although I don't live in Reedley anymore, for quite some time now).

Your argument seems to suggest that analog information is made absolutely, completely useless by the presence of digital information.  

How about I tell you one thing for sure: THE PHILIPPINES IS NOT A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.  It wasn't in 1998, and it definitely isn't now.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jan 24, 2012)

Yes, yes. Shove your credentials down my throat. That makes for compelling  evidence to support your arguments, without actually arguing. Apparently, that means you're entitled to always be right.

Also, tell me *WHAT'S HAPPENING IN MY OWN FUCKING COUNTRY!!!* Your people are already telling everyone else how to run their countries, so why the fuck not?

With people like this, it's no surprise that your elected officials want to enslave you. That way of thinking is ridiculously Western.

Sure, pull rank on me. Contradict something I know even if you don't. Anything just to avoid putting your own idea out there.



Can't people hold a proper discussion without trying to be ridiculous and trying to one-up the other guy?

A big *FUCK YOU* to people who think like that. At least learn to stand by your own opinions without  this other bullshit.


----------



## exangel (Jan 24, 2012)

I do stand by my opinions, I just don't waste my time arguing with people like you who are clearly emotional and unversed in structured debate.
Since you're pissed off enough to say completely unfounded things about me even before your above post, such as that I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about (Yes, I do.  I am not the only person who disagreed with you but you decided to single ME out.)

Being a Philippine resident doesn't give you any more authority than I have.
http://en.wikipedia....the_Philippines

The Philippines may have a large visible indigenous population (and very visible poverty) but it's most definitely a first world country, especially now.
Your country devotes more to education per budget dollar spent than any of the US states do, as well.  You should be grateful- I'll admit you have an admirable command of English but the reason I won't be bothered to discuss this as an argument with you is because I simply don't care about your opinion.  Or proving that I'm right.

I have other things to do with my daily life that don't fill me with negativity like your words would.  So, I'm not conceding but I _am_ giving up on you.


----------



## Veho (Jan 24, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> Is this supposed to be proving a point other then mine?


Nah, just pointing out that what you said was basically "not medicine, medicine." Which was pretty pointless. As for your "point", I agree that we don't "need" any of the modern inventions in order to live, and if we except medicine (or "medical practices", which, according to you, is somehow different from "medicine," despite the definition; but I digress), apart from that, there hasn't been a single essential invention that we absolutely couldn't live without in the past _thousand_ years. So why stop at a mere 50?


----------



## The Milkman (Jan 24, 2012)

Veho said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > Is this supposed to be pr
> ...


I could explain it to you OR I could end this quite off topic debate here. I choose the latter.


----------



## Veho (Jan 25, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> I could explain it to you


No, I really don't think you could. 



> quite off topic debate


Hey, you started it. I was kinda hoping that since you brought it up, there was some sort of point behind it. Apparently not.


----------



## Koumori_Knight (Jan 25, 2012)

@[member='shinigami357']
Your arrogance and argumentative tone are quite baffling.
For one thing try reading a book. It's this thing that was invented to store and transport information.
Next, please look at the civil rights movement, ghandi, the renaissance and so many other situations in history.
The internet did not exist for those things but they certainly went off with out need of it.
I do not mean to diminish the marvelous uses the internet has, but don't make it out to be the end all be all of communication. Life managed and continues to manage just fine with no internet.
Just ask the Vanuatu tribesmen. They barely have phone service, and that is by choice.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jan 25, 2012)

Without a doubt the Internet is the greatest leap forward in knowledge sharing since the printing press. I am surprised that so many of you seem to downplay its significance.


----------



## exangel (Jan 25, 2012)

Expressing that mankind can live without it is not the same as downplaying its' significance. 

On the flipside, I'm surprised that anyone believes that the most adaptive species on our planet wouldn't recover from losing access to that tool.  To become "absolutely" dependent on possessing this tool, is to resign one's will to independently learn and retain knowledge. 

A great philosopher, Plato if my memory serves me, was known to remark that _even literacy was a crutch_ because it relieved the mind of the necessity to remember.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jan 25, 2012)

It was indeed Plato who discussed the effects of technology and literacy in _Phaedrus_. Do you know how I knew that? I looked it up on the Internet. It is impossible for the mind to remember the details of everything in the universe. Why remember what you can reference?

“Never memorize something that you can look up.”​―​Albert Einstein


----------



## exangel (Jan 25, 2012)

Why refuse to be capable of retaining knowledge?

edit:
It's a cop out to simply say it's impossible to remember everything, and therefore don't bother.

The more you depend on the external world, the less will exist internally.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jan 25, 2012)

Not a single person in this discussion has argued for refusing the capability to retain knowledge. You are creating a straw man that you can easily defeat.

edit: You are looking at things from the wrong perspective. I am not saying that we should empty our minds and rely solely on external sources. I am saying that in addition to our minds we can utilize the vast resources available to us. We are not made weaker by these things, rather we are made that much stronger.


----------



## exangel (Jan 25, 2012)

No, I'm not.
I was mirroring your rhetoric.

The mind is better off without "absolute" dependence on the external (such as, choosing to not train one'sself to remember things that are easily referenced).

edit:

*All I've been trying to say is that the internet is a tool.  *
*When one ceases to recall the ability to craft without this tool, they're no greater than a tool themself.*


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jan 25, 2012)

The development and usage of tools is one of the defining characteristics of man. It is what makes us great. I fail to see an epidemic of people walking around knowing nothing, utterly dependent upon the Internet to function. Quite the opposite, in fact, as we are more educated and knowledgable now than at any point in human history due in large part to these "tools".


----------



## exangel (Jan 25, 2012)

On the contrary, I've seen documentaries that show quite clearly that the internet and the omnipresence of information and multitasking reduce the capabilities of critical thinking and reading comprehension.  I can go to Netflix to find at least one title to share for certain.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jan 25, 2012)

Multitasking reduces overall efficiency. There are several studies supporting this. That is a red herring with regard to the Internet. No one makes you multitask.

edit: It is amusing that you cannot remember all the details of things, so you keep referencing different Internet sources to support your claims, all the while saying the Internet is a detriment.


----------



## exangel (Jan 25, 2012)

You're only citing one of the aspects of my argument.  It's one that goes with the idea that the comfort of total recall (external) causes one to study without focus and fail to comprehend or retain the knowledge they comprehend.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jan 25, 2012)

What exactly are you getting at? That, for the good of mankind, we should destroy or otherwise limit access to information?


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jan 25, 2012)

This discussion now makes so much sense that it has past the point of relevance and begun to lap itself.  Congratulations gentlemen...

*edit: and ladies


----------



## The Milkman (Jan 25, 2012)

I dun gone and start sum of them philosophico debatez hur hur.


----------



## exangel (Jan 25, 2012)

Blood Fetish said:


> What exactly are you getting at? That, for the good of mankind, we should destroy or otherwise limit access to information?


Of course not.

I already said it in bold above.
I'll put another perspective down to illustrate.

For the good of the individual, one should not make the error of depending on the internet as their *only* source of information and communication; nor should the individual make the folly of believing there's no other way/source to achieve great knowledge.


edit:


Blood Fetish said:


> edit: It is amusing that you cannot remember all the details of things, so you keep referencing different Internet sources to support your claims, all the while saying the Internet is a detriment.


And your response to me forgetting precise sources is of little effect to my overall point anyway.  I only referred to Netflix to provide a source for a documentary that I remember clearly, if you wanted that (I just didn't remember with certainty who produced it).  The same issue (of forgetting a precise source) could have just as easily come up in a university 100 years ago, working with only analogue journals and catalogued print information.  And so far as the Plato reference goes, I have several of his books that I could have used to verify my reference to him (I thought it might've been another philosopher, a glance at forewords would've achieved that verification that you got).  In fact, I don't see anywhere that I referenced the internet regarding this point, other than to mention Netflix, Blood Fetish.
Only my prior comments about my 15ish years of experience on the internet & the reference to the Philippines' economy referred to the internet, and that had more to do with fending off Shinigami's aggression than what you've discussed with me.


----------



## Koumori_Knight (Jan 26, 2012)

Having observed the previous arguments, I have come to the opinion that some people have grown blind to their own independance.
Look at how agressive some people are in defending the internet as a complete and total requirement for life. The internet is a marvelous tool, a fantastic avenue of communication, a wonderful vehicle for free thought and an unmatched method of distribution. However, is it not the bedrock of human exprience and knowledge that makes it such a valuable resource? If not for all the other experiences that people have, away from the internet and before it, would the network on which the information travels be of any real use?
The internet does have great significance, but only because of what we give to it. If we become too dependant on it as the only way of getting, storing or sharing information, I think that we devalue the human ability to learn, adapt and create.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Jan 26, 2012)

My favorite part of this argument is the fact that the conversation went from a blog about a shitty piece of legislation that never had a chance in the first place, to a debate on whether or not the universe would implode should the internet cease to exist...



Spoiler



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX161ulHrSA


----------



## Arnold Schwarzen (Jan 26, 2012)

assholes are like opinions. Both has everybody.


----------



## Koumori_Knight (Jan 27, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> My favorite part of this argument is the fact that the conversation went from a blog about a shitty piece of legislation that never had a chance in the first place, to a debate on whether or not the universe would implode should the internet cease to exist...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Eh....whatcha gonna do...
peoplez liek to argue.

Its kinda fun when you have patently extreme assessments championed by over zealous and angry combatants to play with.
Watching them desolve into FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!! Is adorable and lol inspiring.


----------

