28 replies to this topic

[Holy Kensai]

So now you are basing "handled well" on relativity. The point still stands though. SARS is practically a bad cough and the government did nothing to stop the media.

I never said I had evidence, I said one could state it, and then you supported it.

I am the first to call you out on it because you utilize large words and grammar which intimates most people. It is whining because the bill can only have negative effects on the internet and you are trying to fight the idea of fighting it simply to cause drama, and perhaps to rebel a little. You have to learn how to pick the right battles.

[kirant]

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 25 2011, 05:59 PM)

So now you are basing "handled well" on relativity?  The point still stands though: SARS is practically a bad cough and the government did nothing to stop the media.

First, I fixed up some grammar issues that were bugging me.

Second, my argument was two fold here. My personal belief was that SARS was handled well. My last post stated that even if you don't agree with that, you still have to agree that with the evidence at hand, the planning effect shows it is a major betterment over no planning. In other words, the act of planning helps prevent unknown unknowns from causing problems.

Third, and a tangent of an argument, the government control of media can only occur via, as the sentence seems to make obvious, government control of media. The old phrase "if it bleeds, it leads" rings very true here. Media blows everything out of proportion unless you're in direct control of it. In that case there are other issues.

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 25 2011, 05:59 PM)

I am the first to call you out on it because you utilize large words and grammar which intimates most people.

Oh? The forums I frequent use much more verbose vocabulary. If you wish to delve into the details as to who I asked to overlook my posts here, I asked a sports forum (3: A moderator who loves these sorts of topics, a friend, and some guy who hates me), an anime forum (an administrator with no connection to me, a friend, and a new member), and a debate forum where posts and language like mine are on the lower end of unique word usage (a retired WWII vet, a philosopher with a doctorates in sociology, and a poster similar to me, none of which have bias to or against me). If what you say is correct, then I should have been called out by any of the last three. I wasn't though when I asked them if my actions were in agreement with your accusation of "whining". I got a 9 for 9 against. I guess you could say of 10 users, 1 finds me whining, where 6 of them have no relation to me.

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 25 2011, 05:59 PM)

It is whining because the bill can only have negative effects on the internet and you are trying to fight the idea of fighting it simply to cause drama, and perhaps to rebel a little.

You seem to have me quite mistaken, sir. I think I've stated well enough that I'm in support of the bill because it will have a net plus on the users of the internet. The law itself and the intention that judges will use it is to prevent illegal streaming. Based on the knowledge, straight from Hollywood, that online streaming injures their industry and that they cut back on the diamond-in-the-rough works, that preventing illegal streaming will, while shutting down what is basically, but not officially, an illegal business, will allow for increased overall movie viewing pleasure as we get great works such as Reservoir Dogs instead of crap like Jack and Jill (Credits go to Cracked.com for those two movie points).

In a heavier note, who said it was my role to rebel? The internet is rebelling as the established government is the US. It's a simple "Will you follow us?" and a flat "No." because I think it's misguided.

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 25 2011, 05:59 PM)

You have to learn how to pick the right battles.

Oh really? What right do you have to tell me which ones to debate? Who says I can't uphold Seinfeldian theory and hold debates about the most mindbogglingly silly things such as the best way to insert a disk or the most effective way to get up in the morning? We've had lots of fun on some forums replicating The Big Bang Theory's "What are the implications of a dusty Out of Order sign?".

And who said I'm here to fight a battle even? I think I made it clear before my point isn't to convince people to agree with me. I'm not insane...just because Joe on the internet agrees or even beats you in an argument won't change your opinion. Cracked ran an excellent piece on that recently. It's just that I want to put up a second point of view. Become a voice of reasoning and intention behind the bill while describing why it actually makes sense. If, for whatever reason, you missed something (which is becoming a disturbingly frequent event when it comes to internet jihads) and you're open to the concept that you got something wrong (something everyone will do eventually), maybe you do realize you're wrong...but it's exceedingly infrequent.

Finally, who are you to tell me to sign the bill (as per your original post)? Your post has the intention of stating "to rebel a little". If I disagree with it morally in a legitimate fashion, am I to succumb to simple animistic herd instinct? Do I rationally decide against my better judgment when the logic of the situation from every source I know, myself and those who work in the field, tell me that it's actually worth it as a whole to society to let it pass? Okay, I'm getting a little wordy there (granted, I'm not really stopping to re-read my post...I'm just typing on the fly)...but you get the point. Why do you get the right to tell me what to do while I'm not allowed to express my opinion and explain it to those who question my logic of the situation, right or wrong?

[Holy Kensai]

First of all there were no grammar mistakes in that sentence. Nice try though.

Second, your personal belief is wrong. That has already been settled, let it go.

Third, the major Canadian broadcasting station is mainly funded by the Canadian Government. Therefore the Canadian Government can easily throw its weight around.

Yes, because soldiers are the smartest people. It's not like they traded away rights for a gun or anything like that. And a philosopher with a sociology degree? Sociology is a joke. Your point is invalid.

You are rebelling against the rebels not the government. The reason being for drama.

I have the right to tell you to stop whining.

If that is your way of admitting you are wrong, I accept.

My original post was stating that your view on SARS was wrong, your trust in Google was misguided, and for you to stop whining. I then told you to sign it because your little "I'm an intellectual rebel" act is full of attention seeking and denial.

[kirant]

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 27 2011, 06:58 PM)

First of all there were no grammar mistakes in that sentence. Nice try though.

The primary thing that bugged me was period mark instead of a question mark after the first sentence.

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 27 2011, 06:58 PM)

Second, your personal belief is wrong. That has already been settled, let it go.

Problem with saying to your statements about handling is that it's a matter of interpretation and circumstance. Yes, quarantines occurred. Yes media sucks. But was the inability to control media effectively a given? If it wasn't, would it have been political suicide to try to put the squeeze on the news behind the scenes? Additionally, was there a better way to ensure effective containment?

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 27 2011, 06:58 PM)

Third, the major Canadian broadcasting station is mainly funded by the Canadian Government. Therefore the Canadian Government can easily throw its weight around.

CBC, yes. CTV and Global Media, no. Do they get some funding? Yeah. However, CTV and Global Media don't completely rely on government it. Not to mention the optics of the situation could hamper efforts. The government using their investment as leverage to prevent news companies from releasing what they want (despite having correct information) looks pretty bad. It starts to wander into scandal territory.

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 27 2011, 06:58 PM)

Yes, because soldiers are the smartest people. It's not like they traded away rights for a gun or anything like that. And a philosopher with a sociology degree? Sociology is a joke. Your point is invalid.

Aw...you're resorting to stereotypes and broad stroke statements. How adorable. I think the generalizations you've painted stand for itself...to throw out all soldiers as "not the smartest people around" and to invalidate their opinion because of that alone is asinine. Fair enough, it may have been an implication by the way I created the statement, but the intent was to show that a wide variety of sources from a wide variety of backgrounds seem to not agree with the conclusion that this is whining. Even if we go to the idea that these people have equal opinions, it's still a 9-1 belief that these type of discussion doesn't qualify as whining...which changes 88-2 if we include the new data I collected (see below).

It also puts in the implication that in order to see whining, you must be of a specific intelligence. The comment of the soldiers is pretty noticeable in this implication, as it points that the soldier is wrong due to intelligence on the subject of correctly or incorrectly noting that I am whining.

As an interesting note, while I was waiting for your post to appear, I decided to ask for more statistically significant results by asking a forum wide vote on this topic via PM to add onto my previous results. On a broad scan of a mostly Western world white collar community, consisting of almost purely masters or higher level degrees of a wide variety of fields (including all forms of science and medicine), it seems an overwhelming majority (of 88-1) seem to declare that it isn't whining. I'd be more tempted to go with the mass opinion in this case as most of them hold no bias to this topic, whereas the answers you and I provide would hold bias pertinent to our side of the argument.

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 27 2011, 06:58 PM)

You are rebelling against the rebels not the government. The reason being for drama.

Drama and discussion seem to be mixed here. It is a subjective subject as to where the line is drawn. However, the act of going against the majority in itself isn't drama. If what I view is simple discussion of the reading, comprehending, and posting of 1st hand data (the bill) instead of a 2nd hand interpretation is considered drama in your mind, for whatever reason, sure, it's drama to you. Yet I haven't seen that it's the way the what the majority views it as of yet. Using similar posting styles on boards with members who will call out drama and, removing your belief that verbose posting styles induce a more timid response, on forums where the average member is way more wordy than myself, I have never seen this happen before with this posting style on this type of topic.

On the same style of thought as your post though, I would be led to believe that if I lived in the greater Vancouver area (which is ever so well known for riots. Stanley Cups, cancelled concerts, Grey Cups...you name it!) and a riot broke out, but I decided to walk up to one of the rioters and ask "Why are you rioting? Oh, [x]? You want me to join you? Well, I'll decline because [reasons]. Would you like to discuss that reasoning?" would be considered drama if some people decide to stop and talk to me about it.

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 27 2011, 06:58 PM)

If that is your way of admitting you are wrong, I accept.

But it isn't. It's an admission (that I freely make) that online argument isn't about to convince someone of right and wrong (a fruitless and silly goal in itself unless research failure occured or a debater used reasoning they're willing to admit is wrong), but to have open exchange and debate of ideas and concepts.

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 27 2011, 06:58 PM)

My original post was stating that your view on SARS was wrong, your trust in Google was misguided, and for you to stop whining. I then told you to sign it because your little "I'm an intellectual rebel" act is full of attention seeking and denial.

Of course. Your post had more in it than that. I'm sure you're aware we address those other points in detail. Funny though that you seem to still think it's about attention seeking or denial (whatever that means in this scenario). It may be due to circumstance, as this is the first time I've actively looked to pursue such a debate on this forum and that it happened to paint me as a contrarian, but attention seeking is the last thing I ever go for. Again, I act to seek discussion and exchange of ideas. The initial reaction of seeing the claims was to investigate them, as the internet has a habit of overreacting. In this case, I believe it has and that the details are lost in the fact that few actually read the bill to confirm the claims and implications in conjunction with a required court order. Simple and plain as that. My first discussion was to friends with more legal experience than me (who simply has reading comprehension of legal bills), who came to the same conclusion as me. Then my next point was to add this idea to topics to see what the truth was...is there a reading failure or did we miss something key in our interpretation of the law?

At this point though, I think we're mostly not discussing the bill anymore...most of our posts are going to discussion of discussion of the bill. I'd be more than happy to continue debate on such enlightening things as the importance of intelligence in determining what is whining, how subjective opinions can be flatly wrong when full information is given, and how all military personnel are not the smartest people around (which that in itself is a reason for discrediting their opinion), but it's simply not the place for this topic. Branching out into too many categories has killed too many good topics. Perhaps a topic or two in other sections of the forum are needed so this can be streamlined back to the bill itself?

Long story short: This discussion is fun and all (no sardonic tone intended), but let's keep this topic focused on the bill. If we're interested in pursuing the other points further, let's put them in other topics as they're starting to shift the point of this topic.

So to that end, I guess I should post why we had these points on SARS and Google:
- SARS was mentioned to the concept that preparation and foresight of an event helps reduce the risk of damage from the event. This was brought up to argue the point that, despite the fact that it may be hard to cause an event where this bill shuts down important websites, the risk of it is bad enough.
- Google was an off-tangent to explore the theory that it could be behind this bill. I'm personally against the belief that it exists, as there really isn't much reasoning for them to do it. What do they gain out of it that they already didn't have (or actually want)? All they get here is the ability to put their already household name in the news again (which serves no purpose) and become the US' frontline workers when asked for it...a hardly desirable outcome.

[Fire Blazer]

Oh my crap so many long posts

Can someone brief me on what's happening so that I can decide if any moderating action needs to be done, I feel like there might be an argument going on, and thus some insulting might be going on, but there's no way I can read through all these posts just to find out... >_>

[kirant]

QUOTE (Blazer @ Nov 29 2011, 05:22 PM)

Can someone brief me on what's happening so that I can decide if any moderating action needs to be done, I feel like there might be an argument going on, and thus some insulting might be going on, but there's no way I can read through all these posts just to find out... >_>

We've been straying from the topic of whether or not the bill is worth passing to whether or not I should be debating signing it and debating about it at all.

Here's my laconic tale, cut down to about a sentence per argument:
kirant: SARS is a counterargument to how well things were handled.
Holy Kensai: It was not handled well, you trust Google too much and I think they may be behind this entire controversy. "So just sign the website and stop whining."
kirant: NA handled it well...media exaggerated the issue, I trust Google, and I don't think I'm whining...just healthy debate.
Holy Kensai: The government should have controlled the media and should have not thrown everybody in quarantine who seemed to have a cough, and (defines whining)
kirant: We're not sure if that was the best solution, but it majorly reduced the risk of spreading SARS, (goes off on incorrect tangent), and you simply define whining, leaving the argument basically "You're whining because I say you're whining". Never heard anyone say it before
Holy Kensai: Best solution still doesn't mean handled well (especially not preventing media from blowing it out of proportion), (corrects me), and I'm the only one to call you out on it because you use big words and use verbose language in your posts. You're just here to rebel. Sign it as it hurts the internet as a whole.
kirant: I thought it was handled well and even if you don't agree, the planning involved did cut down issues. Media was an unmanageable issue. I've asked users from other forums with much more wordy posts to check: They don't agree that I'm whining. I'm here to post another side to the argument, not to convince anyone that I'm right. I think this bill actually helps users as a whole in the entertainment in their life.
Holy Kensai: I think you're moving the goalposts of your argument. You're wrong; it was handled poorly. Government should have thrown its weight and forced the issue to prevent media problems. (Attacks my support's credibility). You're just seeking attention and trying to create drama.
kirant: Absolute handling of the term "well" is impossible. Maybe the way it was handled was best. Optics of closing media from what they want to say are ugly...almost into scandal territory. Stereotyping and ad hominem arguments are not useful. Also, I have 88 people from various backgrounds who say I'm not whining, one not you who says I am. Drama and discussion have a grey zone...if you think it's drama so be it...others don't seem to (first time I've actually been called whining in this sort of discussion). Let's cut back to the main discussion...we're wandering off topic.

[IBPhoenix09]

Omg... There are many reasons this bill should not be allowed to pass. but there's one that makes it absolute necessity. If we allow censorship on the internet in any way shape or form for any reason, it establishes a precedent. Thereby making further censorship possible in the future. IMHO this makes everything else irrelevant. I respect open discussion and conflicting opinions, but that's the simple truth of it. because precedent carries so much weight in our legal and judicial systems.

In short i hope this bill never passes simply because it would prove that money can buy law in the united states, and that further s]censorship is just a matter of throwing money at the right senators.

[kirant]

QUOTE (IBPhoenix09 @ Nov 30 2011, 11:00 AM)

Omg... There are many reasons this bill should not be allowed to pass. but there's one that makes it absolute necessity. If we allow censorship on the internet in any way shape or form for any reason, it establishes a precedent. Thereby making further censorship possible in the future. IMHO this makes everything else irrelevant. I respect open discussion and conflicting opinions, but that's the simple truth of it. because precedent carries so much weight in our legal and judicial systems.

I think if it really was a censorship bill more than a copyright loophole fix, I'd be more inclined to agree. However, the official wording of the bill specifically targets the ideas of copyright infringement and how illegal streaming of shows interacts with it, something the old version of the law did not impact. Using it as a precedence for a bill is closer to censorship would need to have a very powerful argument.

QUOTE (IBPhoenix09 @ Nov 30 2011, 11:00 AM)

In short i hope this bill never passes simply because it would prove that money can buy law in the united states, and that further s]censorship is just a matter of throwing money at the right senators.

Personally, I think the major problem with the US is political apathy. The concept of bought and paid for governments exists as an excuse to allow apathy to slip through and be acceptable. Because the American voters though don't care enough to keep a watchful eye on their corrupt politicians and vote them out for another politician (which is where the two party system and a heavily partisan country really hurts), they can get away with that...same works with mudslinging. Money in those campaigns would mean nothing if people read the promises and figured out for themselves what it meant instead of listening to the opponent slam it and the supporter promise them the moon.

...Actually, my friend and I were amazed how much could be fixed if the American education system and political apathy were corrected when we did a simple thought experiment...

[Holy Kensai]

Blazer, to summarize, kirant is whining, I called him out, he is whining some more. Rinse and repeat.