User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 53

  1. #21
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tessertime View Post
    Let me introduce to you an appetizer: Your attitude thus, and your attempt at trying to make me angry concerning your view of my "competence", doesn't phase me. Am I supposed to me upset here because you are questioning my level of intelligence? I suppose that would be a confict between Ti and Te, and Fe and Fi. I am actually not surprised you took that out of the woodworks;
    This is how far I read before I lost interest. I think I know enough.

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    This is how far I read before I lost interest. I think I know enough.
    I figured. You're just one more person under the superiority complex.
    I am not surprised, because it really wouldn't have mattered what I've said. You clearly go for the person, instead of the argument, which invalidates the core of a debate. Last I remember a debate/discussion is about what is exchanged, not the values of a person.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm sort of not understanding what you're meaning here, I dont believe that obscenities in daily speech arise because kids pick it up from books. Although that's a bit odd to think that.

    Most people who oppose censorship do so because they believe they will be censored themselves or something they may be interested in would be censored and they would be prevented from enjoying it, they dont think about what they would like to protect others from viewing or the possible harm it could cause if it were freely available to and viewed by them.

    Parents and carers are more likely to understand that need to protect from harm, whether its witnessing something especially violent, scary, terrifying, pornographic or otherwise transgressive of universal or familial norms and mores of thinking and acting. Why? Because they care, they're not negligent or neglectful or abusive. There's an appreciation for development stages, age appropriate messages, comprehension etc. and an awareness of the vulnerability which violation of any of those can create.

    Although to be honest I'm a little disappointed these points dont just occur to people. That I've actually got to type them out like its totally new information.
    Not talking about books here, talking about movies - parents usually don't curse with their kids around... Unless you live in a trailer park. Think of those movies portraying tough guys that aren't comedic - just pure action. Another thing is things like Youtube or other video sharing sites - plenty of videos kids beating up kids for fun, kids making fun of kids, vadalizing places, etc.. A dude posts it on his Facebook wall, 20 people will repost it as "awesome!" and chances are, someone's gonna think "hey, they like it! I wanna be the tough guy, they will like me too!"

    I also agree that most parents change their views, set them on "protection" mode.

    Anyway, to continue on censorship - personally I don't watch and never watched all those disgusting (vomit, drunk, etc.) videos that kids seem to have been ejoying in high-school so much. I remember them laughing and being happily disgusted at videos of someone vomiting or even went as far as taking a shit in a public place - "what the fuck? Damn retards." I was thinking. However, if we move to the censorship of profane language or violent acts like evidence that would be shown on TV, or direct descriptions of certain conditions, I'm against that. Example: soft language on TV.

    P.S. I know I'm gonna get lots of negative opinions for this post.

    EDIT: I do agree that kids should not be protected from the "bad things" of the world, but well - some things influence values opposite to higher intelligence. And people complain that people are stupid...

  4. #24
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typoz View Post
    Okay, that's a different scenario indeed. That can get annoying. Earlier the whole school would know something, now the whole world. I wonder if posting pictures of others' without their consent is allowed by law, I've heard cases where pictures were taken down. Although, I think it's not allowed only if you're making money. But yea, I don't think posting embarrassing pictures is appropriate (if the embarrassment is cause by others), but then again, I don't think physical damage is appropriate too. Of course it depends on the level of embarrassment. Personally, I've in mind extreme cases. And anyway, if it's something you've caused by yourself, it's your fault (stupidity, lack of self-control, etc.), you shouldn't complain about it. If it's something of low degree, something that wouldn't cause a permanent damage, you shouldn't complain about it either.
    Well, ever heard of the saying that once something goes on the web, it stays in the web? I don't think people have the intention of posting embarrassing information about themselves on the web. And most of the time, those information that do get posted aren't done by the person who wanted it on there in the first place.

    However, if the information posted on a site is done by the person who is embarrassed, than that is a different story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Typoz View Post
    What's the point of getting the little of it if if someone wanted to, he could get to you anyway? The main reason for privacy and anonymity is the government, other reasons... Well, most of them are very unlikely (.0001%) or stupid (paranoid).
    Other reasons that aren't just the government, there are a butt-load of advertising companies that collect butt-loads of information about you. Your individual information is worth pennies to them, but it adds up to a goldmine with the amount of information received. It is why they are having a fuss about Microsoft having "Do-Not-Track" as a default (although generally speaking, it does nothing because advertisers aren't forced to not track you.) Typically speaking, they can collect information about you and sell it to other companies that know nothing about you because information about you is good to them. They wouldn't need to tell you that they are selling information about you because, lawfully speaking, the information they collected about you is theirs to keep. Many sites work like this, all/most information you put on the site is theirs to keep. Which isn't really paranoid speaking because it is fact. Just look at Facebook and even Google (although I don't have too much of a problem with Google.)

    It is also the reason why I ad-block most sites (there is a few I am willing to unblock the ads because they generate revenue for the site.)

    Anonymity and privacy, like a journalist, helps when you don't want to single out anybody or single out yourself. The fact that people can go online without being scrutinized, per se, is already a lot. But it is really a double-edged sword and applies to every thing.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tessertime View Post
    I figured. You're just one more person under the superiority complex.
    I am not surprised, because it really wouldn't have mattered what I've said. You clearly go for the person, instead of the argument, which invalidates the core of a debate. Last I remember a debate/discussion is about what is exchanged, not the values of a person.
    I think you should reflect on what you just typed and see if it applies more to your good self.

    Your knee jerk responses say more about your own insecurity and concerns about self-efficacy than any topical discussion. And like I said I'm going to judge you on that basis, I'm not being superior, just aware.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typoz View Post
    Not talking about books here, talking about movies - parents usually don't curse with their kids around... Unless you live in a trailer park. Think of those movies portraying tough guys that aren't comedic - just pure action. Another thing is things like Youtube or other video sharing sites - plenty of videos kids beating up kids for fun, kids making fun of kids, vadalizing places, etc.. A dude posts it on his Facebook wall, 20 people will repost it as "awesome!" and chances are, someone's gonna think "hey, they like it! I wanna be the tough guy, they will like me too!"

    I also agree that most parents change their views, set them on "protection" mode.

    Anyway, to continue on censorship - personally I don't watch and never watched all those disgusting (vomit, drunk, etc.) videos that kids seem to have been ejoying in high-school so much. I remember them laughing and being happily disgusted at videos of someone vomiting or even went as far as taking a shit in a public place - "what the fuck? Damn retards." I was thinking. However, if we move to the censorship of profane language or violent acts like evidence that would be shown on TV, or direct descriptions of certain conditions, I'm against that. Example: soft language on TV.

    P.S. I know I'm gonna get lots of negative opinions for this post.

    EDIT: I do agree that kids should not be protected from the "bad things" of the world, but well - some things influence values opposite to higher intelligence. And people complain that people are stupid...
    Your post just convinced me that on balance the internet is a bad thing.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Well, ever heard of the saying that once something goes on the web, it stays in the web? I don't think people have the intention of posting embarrassing information about themselves on the web. And most of the time, those information that do get posted aren't done by the person who wanted it on there in the first place.

    However, if the information posted on a site is done by the person who is embarrassed, than that is a different story.



    Other reasons that aren't just the government, there are a butt-load of advertising companies that collect butt-loads of information about you. Your individual information is worth pennies to them, but it adds up to a goldmine with the amount of information received. It is why they are having a fuss about Microsoft having "Do-Not-Track" as a default (although generally speaking, it does nothing because advertisers aren't forced to not track you.) Typically speaking, they can collect information about you and sell it to other companies that know nothing about you because information about you is good to them. They wouldn't need to tell you that they are selling information about you because, lawfully speaking, the information they collected about you is theirs to keep. Many sites work like this, all/most information you put on the site is theirs to keep. Which isn't really paranoid speaking because it is fact. Just look at Facebook and even Google (although I don't have too much of a problem with Google.)

    It is also the reason why I ad-block most sites (there is a few I am willing to unblock the ads because they generate revenue for the site.)

    Anonymity and privacy, like a journalist, helps when you don't want to single out anybody or single out yourself. The fact that people can go online without being scrutinized, per se, is already a lot. But it is really a double-edged sword and applies to every thing.
    Not just governments and corporations.

    In the UK I read about a guy who was eventually caught after burglarising a lot of very wealthy homes, he told the court he'd posed on social media and asked a lot of people if they were going on holidays soon and when they told him they had also really broadcast when their homes would be empty and unprotected.

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think you should reflect on what you just typed and see if it applies more to your good self.

    Your knee jerk responses say more about your own insecurity and concerns about self-efficacy than any topical discussion. And like I said I'm going to judge you on that basis, I'm not being superior, just aware.
    Apply more to my good self? So, I am reflecting on what there? The fact that I pointed out an observation, and you wiplash it without any counter-argument by trying to cut into my own self-values? Maybe that I presented a good argument to back my observation, and your illogical retort about "knowing enough" and dismissing my argument? Knowing enough about what? My character? That is hardly a basis to argue on.
    So far you have not presented a good counter-argument that could be deemed logical, but have instead provided responses based on inner-values. Would that not be classified a knee-jerk reaction as opposed to a good constructed argument?

    Being aware is an excuse. You are clearly taking a stand on elevated moral grounds than on any constructive argument. The only question here is whether or not you will respond the same way as you have been, thereby proving my point, or actually conceding to a good argument based on objectivity, thereby actually committing to a debate/discussion as was my initial intent. Or there is a third option, which is ignoring my post, which again only proves my point.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    It's hardly surprising when you consider its origins. Boycott Facebook!

    I had read from that same journalist, that although Facebook has added additional reporting categories for "threats against a <group or individual>" and "hate speech" that they don't actually do anything. (Play around with the dropdowns that appear post-selection and you'll see them.) So I decided to report a page (that has several variations that involve activities such as smoking or going to bars at night) called "When I see a pregnant woman, I want to punch her in the face." I got a polite prefab response 12 hours later from an employee named Vicki explaining that the group didn't qualify under their "hate speech" or "threats against a group of people" categories. Oh really Vicki? Then what does?
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  10. #30
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    ^Genuinely disturbing.
    I desperately want to understand where this hatred comes from, because it just makes no f@&£)ing sense to me...
    Quote Originally Posted by Typoz View Post
    I'm talking about online privacy here. When I hear "online privacy" I think of your geographical location (which is only your country and city in most cases), your IP (a bunch of numbers), your name, age, sex, etc. IF you enter it somewhere (you can use fake details, therefore it's your fault). Same goes for your email. So the only reason why you wouldn't want to give your IP and city you live in is if there'd be someone to get you (a hacker, there's a reason if you're in that situation, which is your fault) or if you do something illegal (hacking, torrenting, etc. - again, your fault).
    You are being rather naive. For one thing, your IP (and derived location) is available to every website you visit (unless you use a proxy). For another, corporations like Google and Facebook track everything you do to develop a profile of exactly who you are so that they can better sell you to advertisers. They probably know more about you than your friends do.
    For another, it's not only hackers who are out to get you, it's stalkers and criminals too.
    And if you think cyberstalking is just about calling people names, think again. It can lead to murder.
    You need to take this stuff more seriously.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Your post just convinced me that on balance the internet is a bad thing.
    It's entirely benign, however, on balance, the people who use it suck.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

Similar Threads

  1. Yet another Islamist atrocity against religious freedom and free speech...
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 11-13-2010, 09:01 PM
  2. Free Speech under assault in Latin America
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-28-2010, 10:13 PM
  3. Europe's war on free speech and its consequences
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 07:07 PM
  4. Forget Big Brother: Facebook, Corporations, and the End of Free Speech
    By speculative in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 11:40 AM
  5. [INTP] INTP as internet trolls?
    By callmemigs in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 08-15-2009, 10:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO