Extremism and the Internet

[huskerjack23]

FALSE DILEMMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[strigori]

Thanks HuskerExpat. That's an excellent application of the theory presented in my article.

 

Again, as someone who probably tends to lean more conservative than liberal, I am worried about the direction of the Republican Party. Yikes.

 

I'm more worried about the direction the government is headed. Actually worried is not the correct term, because that would mean I cared if the government crumbled today, which I absolutely do not. So, what I meant to say is, I am encouraged by the actions government, and those who support it, are being forced to take. This can only mean more and more people are opening up their eyes, searching and figuring out the truth. This has those in power very, very worried.

 

However, the downside to this revelation is that we will see an increase in propaganda looking to link disturbed, loner psychos such as McVeigh, Von Brunn, and other fringe lunatics to those who logically and rationally question what the government is doing, how they are doing it and why we even need government to begin with. Studies on extremism by pro-big government educators, the DHS report on domestic terrorism and liberty-bashing articles by the likes of pseudo-economist/sheep Paul Krugman are examples of this happening already. This increase in propaganda will no doubt help shape public opinion in favor of government; which in turn will lead to an increase in government power, more regulation, and all at the expense of freedom. But hey, that’s government for you.

 

The Slate article and Sunstein’s study assume that people want moderation and compromise, not extremism. But what if people just want the truth? Is that extremism too? Is it bad for people to be exposed to the different issues, choose what they agree with, and make choices based on their own preferences and logic? From the article, it sounds as if Sunstein isn't so much worried about “public disconnect,” but more worried about the loss of control those in authority have over individuals. Sunstein acknowledges that good and bad extremism exist, but who gets to decide which is which? Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

 

How often is there actually "truth?" I'd say seldom. There are viewpoints and opinions. There is seldom objective truth.

 

That still doesn't answer the question. Are individuals too incapable of figuring that out themselves?

 

I guess it doesn't answer the question. Rather it raises a more relevant one: do people want something that doesn't exist?

 

So now truth doesn't exist?? That's a good one!!

 

The fact is truth does exist, you just have to sift through piles of government lies to find it. Any sensible person, willing to logically and critically decipher information, will without a doubt, always find the truth.

 

I wonder, do you actually deal with the general public at all? People cant figure out the price signs at Wal-Mart. And there IS a reason why religions refer to people as 'sheep.' I do not believe the average person can logically or critically decipher information. Almost no one can. Nearly everyone will go into an evaluation with preconceptions, or a lean in one direction or another. And if some information pops up that is contrary to their preconceived notions, many will discard the info outright, instead of evaluating their held beliefs.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Who was talking about government? You sound like a one trick pony.

 

Also . . . 1. I say truth doesn't always exist, (which is not debatable by the way) 2. You say that doesn't answer the question, 3. I repeat that truth doesn't always exist, 4. NOW you argue that truth always exist.

 

That raises a better question . . . do you even address what others are posting? Or do you just jump in head first with an anti-government rant?

 

As far as there always being a "truth," a quick test is to pick any hot button issue. There is usually no "correct" answer. Go on down the line: abortion, immigration, gun control, etc. etc. etc. These are not black and white issues. They are gray issues. That is what I mean by there not being "truth." To argue otherwise is to risk sounding uninformed or unintelligent.

 

This entire thread is about government, its supporters and critics, the effects of its intervention and the effects the internet has on the acceptance or denial of its policies. The reason I bring up government is because if you actually look at any of the issues brought forth, government is always at the root of the problem. See my first post about how government and this issue are intertwined.

 

As for truth existing it most definitely does. It may take a while to uncover it, but it always exist. Why do people lie, if not to hide the truth? Read the book The Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion for a pretty good summary of why people lie.

 

These so-called "hot" issues are nothing more than camouflage and distractions to deter people from discovering the truth about property rights. Isn't that what each of those is about anyways? For as long as people are stuck debating useless opinions instead of looking at whether or not anyone has any right to run any other individuals life, the government will always have something to step in and resolve the "issue". This creates the illusion that the government is needed, therefore allowing government time and legitimacy to continue its scheme of tyranny and coercion.

[huskerjack23]

 

Who was talking about government? You sound like a one trick pony.

 

Also . . . 1. I say truth doesn't always exist, (which is not debatable by the way) 2. You say that doesn't answer the question, 3. I repeat that truth doesn't always exist, 4. NOW you argue that truth always exist.

 

That raises a better question . . . do you even address what others are posting? Or do you just jump in head first with an anti-government rant?

 

As far as there always being a "truth," a quick test is to pick any hot button issue. There is usually no "correct" answer. Go on down the line: abortion, immigration, gun control, etc. etc. etc. These are not black and white issues. They are gray issues. That is what I mean by there not being "truth." To argue otherwise is to risk sounding uninformed or unintelligent.

 

This entire thread is about government, its supporters and critics, the effects of its intervention and the effects the internet has on the acceptance or denial of its policies. The reason I bring up government is because if you actually look at any of the issues brought forth, government is always at the root of the problem. See my first post about how government and this issue are intertwined.

 

As for truth existing it most definitely does. It may take a while to uncover it, but it always exist. Why do people lie, if not to hide the truth? Read the book The Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion for a pretty good summary of why people lie.

 

These so-called "hot" issues are nothing more than camouflage and distractions to deter people from discovering the truth about property rights. Isn't that what each of those is about anyways? For as long as people are stuck debating useless opinions instead of looking at whether or not anyone has any right to run any other individuals life, the government will always have something to step in and resolve the "issue". This creates the illusion that ANYONE is needed, therefore allowing ANYONE time and legitimacy to continue its scheme of tyranny and coercion.

anyone can do those things. private sector or government. coercion will always exist and a person's "rights" as defined by...well you, apparently will always be corruptible. i'm not one to believe in your tyranny either.

[strigori]

 

Who was talking about government? You sound like a one trick pony.

 

Also . . . 1. I say truth doesn't always exist, (which is not debatable by the way) 2. You say that doesn't answer the question, 3. I repeat that truth doesn't always exist, 4. NOW you argue that truth always exist.

 

That raises a better question . . . do you even address what others are posting? Or do you just jump in head first with an anti-government rant?

 

As far as there always being a "truth," a quick test is to pick any hot button issue. There is usually no "correct" answer. Go on down the line: abortion, immigration, gun control, etc. etc. etc. These are not black and white issues. They are gray issues. That is what I mean by there not being "truth." To argue otherwise is to risk sounding uninformed or unintelligent.

 

This entire thread is about government, its supporters and critics, the effects of its intervention and the effects the internet has on the acceptance or denial of its policies. The reason I bring up government is because if you actually look at any of the issues brought forth, government is always at the root of the problem. See my first post about how government and this issue are intertwined.

 

As for truth existing it most definitely does. It may take a while to uncover it, but it always exist. Why do people lie, if not to hide the truth? Read the book The Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion for a pretty good summary of why people lie.

 

These so-called "hot" issues are nothing more than camouflage and distractions to deter people from discovering the truth about property rights. Isn't that what each of those is about anyways? For as long as people are stuck debating useless opinions instead of looking at whether or not anyone has any right to run any other individuals life, the government will always have something to step in and resolve the "issue". This creates the illusion that the government is needed, therefore allowing government time and legitimacy to continue its scheme of tyranny and coercion.

I tried reading part of that tripe linked. And it was quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read. So many holes in 'logic' as well as the glaring issue that he totally has 'fact' and 'truth' juxtaposed. Fact has hard evidence. Such as it is a FACT that 2 + 2 = 4. Facts do not change. 'Truth' is subjective. And can change as new facts come to light. A person call tell the 'truth' and not have a single thing right about an event. Evidence would be the massive differences that show up in eye witness accounts. The people are not lying, just what they saw as truth was not what actually happened. He actually has a segment that is trying to justify stealing, because someone may have given, in his mind, an invalid explanation of why it is wrong. Or his comment that most people are 'brilliant.' Or how he preaches about atheism, he must have had a divine revelation. The author of that 'book' is a self righteous, arrogant, and a perfect example of an 'intellectual'(I use this term liberally in his case) who spends his time in 'philosophy' and not in the real world.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Who was talking about government? You sound like a one trick pony.

 

Also . . . 1. I say truth doesn't always exist, (which is not debatable by the way) 2. You say that doesn't answer the question, 3. I repeat that truth doesn't always exist, 4. NOW you argue that truth always exist.

 

That raises a better question . . . do you even address what others are posting? Or do you just jump in head first with an anti-government rant?

 

As far as there always being a "truth," a quick test is to pick any hot button issue. There is usually no "correct" answer. Go on down the line: abortion, immigration, gun control, etc. etc. etc. These are not black and white issues. They are gray issues. That is what I mean by there not being "truth." To argue otherwise is to risk sounding uninformed or unintelligent.

 

This entire thread is about government, its supporters and critics, the effects of its intervention and the effects the internet has on the acceptance or denial of its policies. The reason I bring up government is because if you actually look at any of the issues brought forth, government is always at the root of the problem. See my first post about how government and this issue are intertwined.

 

As for truth existing it most definitely does. It may take a while to uncover it, but it always exist. Why do people lie, if not to hide the truth? Read the book The Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion for a pretty good summary of why people lie.

 

These so-called "hot" issues are nothing more than camouflage and distractions to deter people from discovering the truth about property rights. Isn't that what each of those is about anyways? For as long as people are stuck debating useless opinions instead of looking at whether or not anyone has any right to run any other individuals life, the government will always have something to step in and resolve the "issue". This creates the illusion that ANYONE is needed, therefore allowing ANYONE time and legitimacy to continue its scheme of tyranny and coercion.

anyone can do those things. private sector or government. coercion will always exist and a person's "rights" as defined by...well you, apparently will always be corruptible. i'm not one to believe in your tyranny either.

 

Oh they can huh?? When's the last time you saw someone, other than government, try to rob someone, force someone to do anything against their will, kill someone, or instigate any other egregious act and not be punished or held accountable for their actions?

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

I tried reading part of that tripe linked. And it was quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read. So many holes in 'logic' as well as the glaring issue that he totally has 'fact' and 'truth' juxtaposed. Fact has hard evidence. Such as it is a FACT that 2 + 2 = 4. Facts do not change. 'Truth' is subjective. And can change as new facts come to light. A person call tell the 'truth' and not have a single thing right about an event. Evidence would be the massive differences that show up in eye witness accounts. The people are not lying, just what they saw as truth was not what actually happened. He actually has a segment that is trying to justify stealing, because someone may have given, in his mind, an invalid explanation of why it is wrong. Or his comment that most people are 'brilliant.' Or how he preaches about atheism, he must have had a divine revelation. The author of that 'book' is a self righteous, arrogant, and a perfect example of an 'intellectual'(I use this term liberally in his case) who spends his time in 'philosophy' and not in the real world.

 

What are these so-called "holes" in logic?

 

The truth is most definitely not subjective. Truth is derived from and consists of facts, which are not subjective, and therefore truth cannot be subjective. People may disregard the facts to form their opinion of the "truth", but that doesn't mean the truth is subjective, it merely means they haven't discovered the truth. Where you got any juxtaposing is beyond me. Only facts can verify truth, there’s no comparison involved. Does the truth not take into consideration evidence? According to you, it doesn't.

 

Sure, people can have different opinions about events but that doesn't make the truth subjective. This merely means they are basing beliefs on opinions and not facts. Opinions are not the truth. If someone claims to be telling the truth, when they aren't sure what the truth is, that doesn't mean they are being truthful, that means they are lying. If someone claims to know something when they really don't, that is a lie. You can skew it anyway you wish but if someone claims to have seen, heard, smelled or touched something they actually didn’t, that is not the truth. Just because it is unintentional doesn’t make it any more or less false. The truth would be saying they don’t know.

 

If you think the author justifies stealing in anyway, you need to reread whatever section you read and look at in context to the entire book. Molyneux in no way condones stealing. He merely used it as an example to show the idiocy and effects of not telling the truth. What he points out is that people are made to believe stealing is wrong for reasons that aren’t always truthful. This creates a trust issue and could lead people, especially kids, to believe that maybe stealing is not wrong after all. What he says is, if people were told not to steal because of some hogwash reason such as not going to heaven or some other lame excuse, instead of the truth. What happens when they realize they have been lied to? Surely, if sometime in a kid’s life he discovered he had been lied to by a certain person, wouldn’t that call into question all that he was taught from the person that lied to him? Would it not be possible for that person to think maybe the opposite of what he was taught is true? Would it then not be conceivable for him to then consider theft to be ok? What happens when they see others stealing and not being punished? Doesn’t that make the reason for not stealing a lie?

 

As I’m sure you already know, you are entitled to your opinion of any person but the name-calling just shows that you have no valid arguments for the points he brings up. Maybe if you could actually refute some of his claims with some valid and logical evidence, this might help your case. Instead, you choose to refer to his statements out of context and name call, which just goes to show what type of world you’re choosing living in.

[SOCALHUSKER]

(snip)

Studies on extremism by pro-big government educators, the DHS report on domestic terrorism and liberty-bashing articles by the likes of pseudo-economist/sheep Paul Krugman are examples of this happening already.

(snip)

Calling Paul Krugman a "pseudo economist" pretty much cements your biased opinion of him. He did, afterall, win a Nobel Prize in Economics. I'm not saying that means that you have to agree with him, but it does show that he is generally respected among economists.

 

Here's some more Krugman and Associates for you!!

 

Krugman Failure, Not Market Failure

[huskerjack23]

 

Who was talking about government? You sound like a one trick pony.

 

Also . . . 1. I say truth doesn't always exist, (which is not debatable by the way) 2. You say that doesn't answer the question, 3. I repeat that truth doesn't always exist, 4. NOW you argue that truth always exist.

 

That raises a better question . . . do you even address what others are posting? Or do you just jump in head first with an anti-government rant?

 

As far as there always being a "truth," a quick test is to pick any hot button issue. There is usually no "correct" answer. Go on down the line: abortion, immigration, gun control, etc. etc. etc. These are not black and white issues. They are gray issues. That is what I mean by there not being "truth." To argue otherwise is to risk sounding uninformed or unintelligent.

 

This entire thread is about government, its supporters and critics, the effects of its intervention and the effects the internet has on the acceptance or denial of its policies. The reason I bring up government is because if you actually look at any of the issues brought forth, government is always at the root of the problem. See my first post about how government and this issue are intertwined.

 

As for truth existing it most definitely does. It may take a while to uncover it, but it always exist. Why do people lie, if not to hide the truth? Read the book The Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion for a pretty good summary of why people lie.

 

These so-called "hot" issues are nothing more than camouflage and distractions to deter people from discovering the truth about property rights. Isn't that what each of those is about anyways? For as long as people are stuck debating useless opinions instead of looking at whether or not anyone has any right to run any other individuals life, the government will always have something to step in and resolve the "issue". This creates the illusion that ANYONE is needed, therefore allowing ANYONE time and legitimacy to continue its scheme of tyranny and coercion.

anyone can do those things. private sector or government. coercion will always exist and a person's "rights" as defined by...well you, apparently will always be corruptible. i'm not one to believe in your tyranny either.

 

Oh they can huh?? When's the last time you saw someone, other than government, try to rob someone, force someone to do anything against their will, kill someone, or instigate any other egregious act and not be punished or held accountable for their actions?

the mafia

[HuskersNow]

Oh they can huh?? When's the last time you saw someone, other than government, try to rob someone, force someone to do anything against their will, kill someone, or instigate any other egregious act and not be punished or held accountable for their actions?

the mafia

 

http://www.americanmafia.com/Cities/New_York_New_Jersey.html

 

The New Jersey factions of La Cosa Nostra often struggled to find ways to make money without upsetting their stronger partners in New York City and Philadelphia. The only established faction of LCN in the state was in Newark. Its first boss was Filippo Amari. He ruled from the establishment of the family until his death in 1957. Nicholas Delmore ruled from 1957 to 1964. Samuel DeCavalcante was the most prominent boss of the New Jersey LCN. He ruled until early in the 1970's. He was succeeded by John Riggi, who is currently imprisoned.

 

Of course not all mob bosses have been imprisoned, but I think the main reason for that is an extremely inneficient and corrupt police force.

[HuskersNow]

 

I tried reading part of that tripe linked. And it was quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read. So many holes in 'logic' as well as the glaring issue that he totally has 'fact' and 'truth' juxtaposed. Fact has hard evidence. Such as it is a FACT that 2 + 2 = 4. Facts do not change. 'Truth' is subjective. And can change as new facts come to light. A person call tell the 'truth' and not have a single thing right about an event. Evidence would be the massive differences that show up in eye witness accounts. The people are not lying, just what they saw as truth was not what actually happened. He actually has a segment that is trying to justify stealing, because someone may have given, in his mind, an invalid explanation of why it is wrong. Or his comment that most people are 'brilliant.' Or how he preaches about atheism, he must have had a divine revelation. The author of that 'book' is a self righteous, arrogant, and a perfect example of an 'intellectual'(I use this term liberally in his case) who spends his time in 'philosophy' and not in the real world.

 

What are these so-called "holes" in logic?

 

The truth is most definitely not subjective. Truth is derived from and consists of facts, which are not subjective, and therefore truth cannot be subjective. People may disregard the facts to form their opinion of the "truth", but that doesn't mean the truth is subjective, it merely means they haven't discovered the truth. Where you got any juxtaposing is beyond me. Only facts can verify truth, there’s no comparison involved. Does the truth not take into consideration evidence? According to you, it doesn't.

 

Sure, people can have different opinions about events but that doesn't make the truth subjective. This merely means they are basing beliefs on opinions and not facts. Opinions are not the truth. If someone claims to be telling the truth, when they aren't sure what the truth is, that doesn't mean they are being truthful, that means they are lying. If someone claims to know something when they really don't, that is a lie. You can skew it anyway you wish but if someone claims to have seen, heard, smelled or touched something they actually didn’t, that is not the truth. Just because it is unintentional doesn’t make it any more or less false. The truth would be saying they don’t know.

 

If you think the author justifies stealing in anyway, you need to reread whatever section you read and look at in context to the entire book. Molyneux in no way condones stealing. He merely used it as an example to show the idiocy and effects of not telling the truth. What he points out is that people are made to believe stealing is wrong for reasons that aren’t always truthful. This creates a trust issue and could lead people, especially kids, to believe that maybe stealing is not wrong after all. What he says is, if people were told not to steal because of some hogwash reason such as not going to heaven or some other lame excuse, instead of the truth. What happens when they realize they have been lied to? Surely, if sometime in a kid’s life he discovered he had been lied to by a certain person, wouldn’t that call into question all that he was taught from the person that lied to him? Would it not be possible for that person to think maybe the opposite of what he was taught is true? Would it then not be conceivable for him to then consider theft to be ok? What happens when they see others stealing and not being punished? Doesn’t that make the reason for not stealing a lie?

 

As I’m sure you already know, you are entitled to your opinion of any person but the name-calling just shows that you have no valid arguments for the points he brings up. Maybe if you could actually refute some of his claims with some valid and logical evidence, this might help your case. Instead, you choose to refer to his statements out of context and name call, which just goes to show what type of world you’re choosing living in.

 

from wikipedia:

The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories of truth continue to be debated.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

 

 

So you're both right!

[hosker]

Oh they can huh?? When's the last time you saw someone, other than government, try to rob someone, force someone to do anything against their will, kill someone, or instigate any other egregious act and not be punished or held accountable for their actions?

the mafia

 

http://www.americanmafia.com/Cities/New_York_New_Jersey.html

 

The New Jersey factions of La Cosa Nostra often struggled to find ways to make money without upsetting their stronger partners in New York City and Philadelphia. The only established faction of LCN in the state was in Newark. Its first boss was Filippo Amari. He ruled from the establishment of the family until his death in 1957. Nicholas Delmore ruled from 1957 to 1964. Samuel DeCavalcante was the most prominent boss of the New Jersey LCN. He ruled until early in the 1970's. He was succeeded by John Riggi, who is currently imprisoned.

 

Of course not all mob bosses have been imprisoned, but I think the main reason for that is an extremely inneficient and corrupt police force.

 

 

first off, is the mafia the norm or the exception? second off, are the members of the mafia free to do what they choose, or are the subject to the mafia's government hierarchy/orders?..... basically what im saying is that the mafia is a government. and you'd have to dig a rabbit hole to find out who's in charge(i choose to leave it at that)

 

huskersnow, hit it as close to the head as you can get without actually hitting it right on the head.... your right in saying that a corrupt police force is part of the problem, the other part of the problem is at the bottom of the rabbit hole that i mentioned above.... or maybe its all just a great conspiracy of our time

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Who was talking about government? You sound like a one trick pony.

 

Also . . . 1. I say truth doesn't always exist, (which is not debatable by the way) 2. You say that doesn't answer the question, 3. I repeat that truth doesn't always exist, 4. NOW you argue that truth always exist.

 

That raises a better question . . . do you even address what others are posting? Or do you just jump in head first with an anti-government rant?

 

As far as there always being a "truth," a quick test is to pick any hot button issue. There is usually no "correct" answer. Go on down the line: abortion, immigration, gun control, etc. etc. etc. These are not black and white issues. They are gray issues. That is what I mean by there not being "truth." To argue otherwise is to risk sounding uninformed or unintelligent.

 

This entire thread is about government, its supporters and critics, the effects of its intervention and the effects the internet has on the acceptance or denial of its policies. The reason I bring up government is because if you actually look at any of the issues brought forth, government is always at the root of the problem. See my first post about how government and this issue are intertwined.

 

As for truth existing it most definitely does. It may take a while to uncover it, but it always exist. Why do people lie, if not to hide the truth? Read the book The Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion for a pretty good summary of why people lie.

 

These so-called "hot" issues are nothing more than camouflage and distractions to deter people from discovering the truth about property rights. Isn't that what each of those is about anyways? For as long as people are stuck debating useless opinions instead of looking at whether or not anyone has any right to run any other individuals life, the government will always have something to step in and resolve the "issue". This creates the illusion that ANYONE is needed, therefore allowing ANYONE time and legitimacy to continue its scheme of tyranny and coercion.

anyone can do those things. private sector or government. coercion will always exist and a person's "rights" as defined by...well you, apparently will always be corruptible. i'm not one to believe in your tyranny either.

 

Oh they can huh?? When's the last time you saw someone, other than government, try to rob someone, force someone to do anything against their will, kill someone, or instigate any other egregious act and not be punished or held accountable for their actions?

the mafia

 

When are they not punished or held accountable?

[huskerjack23]

when they rise to power.

[carlfense]

Oh they can huh?? When's the last time you saw someone, other than government, try to rob someone, force someone to do anything against their will, kill someone, or instigate any other egregious act and not be punished or held accountable for their actions?

the mafia

 

http://www.americanmafia.com/Cities/New_York_New_Jersey.html

 

The New Jersey factions of La Cosa Nostra often struggled to find ways to make money without upsetting their stronger partners in New York City and Philadelphia. The only established faction of LCN in the state was in Newark. Its first boss was Filippo Amari. He ruled from the establishment of the family until his death in 1957. Nicholas Delmore ruled from 1957 to 1964. Samuel DeCavalcante was the most prominent boss of the New Jersey LCN. He ruled until early in the 1970's. He was succeeded by John Riggi, who is currently imprisoned.

 

Of course not all mob bosses have been imprisoned, but I think the main reason for that is an extremely inneficient and corrupt police force.

 

 

first off, is the mafia the norm or the exception? second off, are the members of the mafia free to do what they choose, or are the subject to the mafia's government hierarchy/orders?..... basically what im saying is that the mafia is a government. and you'd have to dig a rabbit hole to find out who's in charge(i choose to leave it at that)

 

huskersnow, hit it as close to the head as you can get without actually hitting it right on the head.... your right in saying that a corrupt police force is part of the problem, the other part of the problem is at the bottom of the rabbit hole that i mentioned above.... or maybe its all just a great conspiracy of our time

 

Wait a minute . . . if every hierarchy is equivalent to government; then every business is a miniature government.