Cane Thumping

[Transient]

Who fell for what?

He got to you. You guys are bickering over a point of view neither of you are going to change. Debating it is one thing, but you're just pushing each other's buttons.

[MKJ]

Yeah. All this conversation happens by itself.

Hey people posting here. Stop ruining "every" thread.

K Thanks.

I don't care about pigheaded discussions. However endless namecalling and "no u" back and forths are not conversations and are indeed 'ruining' threads.
I don't care who starts them, just don't contribute to it.

[YourGrandpa]

Who fell for what?

He got to you.

As if. LOL.

[YourGrandpa]

I don't care about pigheaded discussions. However endless namecalling and "no u" back and forths are not conversations and are indeed 'ruining' threads.
I don't care who starts them, just don't contribute to it.

You want cooperation? Don't single people out. Especially if there are other contributors. Address the group and make your request. Otherwise, what you're doing is unfair, bias and not applicable to all. Therefore not applicable to anyone.

[MKJ]

You are right, I shouldn't single anyone out. Which is why I didn't quote anyone specific in my first post.

We can argue semantics all day - which I'm not going to - but the point still stands. So to all: either stop it or take it to the Void. Thank you.

[Κracus]

There was the potential for debate, but that chance pretty much went up in smoke when Kracus invoked Godwin's Law and you fell for it.

I wouldn't say I invoked Godwins law in this case, it was a joke, not meant as an argument. The rest of my discussion however where I tried to show Gwamps how technology isn't the problem here is my actual argument. I really do believe technology helps people to stay in touch with others rather than the opposite which is what Gwamps is suggesting. I may be pushing Gwamps buttons but that's like impossible to not do when someone absolutely refuses to look at the holes in their own argument. Social media helps people meet others, water is wet. This isn't my opinion these are facts that gwamps disagrees with so there's no debating that with him until he pulls his head out of the sand.

[YourGrandpa]

You're doing it again and you don't even see it... I NEVER said technology was "the" problem. I NEVER said technology doesn't help people communicate. I can acknowledge that social media and the internet have plenty of redeeming qualities. If used properly and in moderation or conjunction with actual personal/physical interactions they can only complement one another. But when you have people who live the majority of their life interacting with others virtually, you can only expect problems when the virtual element is removed. And that's what is happening in this world of instant gratification as more and more aspects of every day existence can be fulfilled by technology. People lose their ability and patience to participate in what should be normal human interactions. This is clearly more prevalent in younger people as they have less experience or reference to what it's like to do something without their cell phone/internet.

[Transient]

That doesn't turn people into mass murderers, though.

[YourGrandpa]

Certainly not every person. But there are people being desensitized to the value of human life due to diminishing interaction.

[Transient]

Was there a spike in murders after radio was invented? How about TV? Did we get more mass killers after people stopped being hunter-gatherers and started living in houses?

[YourGrandpa]

TV, Radio and Telephone collectively pale in comparison to the internet. Which is coincidentally why all are being replaced by the internet. Just as the internet is replacing the need for human interaction. Listen, the internet by itself isn't "bad". It's how people are being raised around it.

I'm sure you disagree and think the internet has nothing but positive aspects and couldn't possibly have any negative affect on it users. Right, Krampass?

[Transient]

The way people were raised after TV was invented changed drastically, too, and there wasn't a spike in murders around the world.

[YourGrandpa]

TV and Radio only offered visual/audible stimulation and very little individuality outside of minimal channel selection. They didn't prevent the need for human interaction. The internet adds an interactive aspect that only further removes the human element and promotes an immersion into a world of never-ending customization. Where people only have to see/hear things that appeal to them. It can't be healthy for young people to have access to everything they want, when and how they want it with little understanding about where it comes from or how it gets there. So you really can't compare TV/Radio to the Internet. You couldn't tell the TV you only wanted to see puppy/kitty videos and have it instantly pull up 3000 selection for choose from. Radio never allowed you to tune into thousands of your favorite type of station and instantly interact with the host or other listeners. All of that with the very comfortable vial of anonymity to hide behind.


Truthfully, you're comparing apples and rocket ships.

[Eraser]

But when you have people who live the majority of their life interacting with others virtually

But again, is this fact or just the way you think the world is working right now? Show me the numbers. The statistics. The objective proof that this is being the case.

Because right now, I'm much more inclined to think that for the majority of people in their teens/twenties/thirties, having platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp or FaceTime only makes it easier to have contact with friends and schoolmates and colleagues. So much in fact, that the online communication is mostly done in addition to the face-to-face contact they already have, or at worst replaces other indirect means of communication they used (like using Whatsapp to chat to a group of friends instead of using the phone to call just one)

[YourGrandpa]

You show me stats...

It's funny how I need stats to support my opinion but somehow you don't.

If you can't see how the virtual world is causing people to have less face to face social activity, then you're blind. That can be seen EVERYWHERE you go. No special study or statistics required. People are more inclined to check their social media apps than they are to speak to another person in the room. That's because the apps provide controlled environments customized by the user to provide positive stimulation. There is very little chance of hearing/seeing/saying anything that offends you or being challenged first hand. If something like that does happen, you can just scroll past without concern. Furthermore, if you can't understand how this progressive detachment from human interaction could cause developmental problems for our youth, you're in denial.

[Transient]

You're the one who made the initial claim, and you're the one who bears the burden of proof. It's a logical fallacy to try and shift that burden to someone who refutes your claim. If you want to convince someone to change their mind, back up your shit.

[YourGrandpa]

It's my opinion based on personal experience. If you think I'm wrong. So much so that you require statistics. Go look them up yourself. Otherwise, be satisfied knowing that you are no more right than I am.

[Transient]

We agree with one another that there are good things and bad things about social media and the internet in general. If your initial assertion ended there, we wouldn't be on page 3 right now. But you went further by implying that there was a statistically significant change in crime after the internet came about. We spent the next few pages going back and forth about why one or the other was wrong. If you're not trying to convince anyone of anything, then why keep this up for so long? Surely a single post on the 1st page would have sufficed to tell us your opinion. Then you could have, you know, moved on.

[Eraser]

You're the one who made the initial claim, and you're the one who bears the burden of proof. It's a logical fallacy to try and shift that burden to someone who refutes your claim. If you want to convince someone to change their mind, back up your shit.

Not only that, but with me not agreeing with him, he's saying that

- I am blind for not agreeing with his personal subjective opinion.
- I am in denial for not agreeing with his personal subjective opinion.
- it is unnecessary to come up with facts because it's "obvious" he is right.

He also seems to be unable to understand that I do not refute his personal observations, it's that I disagree with extrapolating that to an entire generation of people and linking that to a significant change in social abilities between people.

YGP here is the prime example of why we're dealing with an epidemic of fake news right now.

[Κracus]

Might be a little bit of projection going on there to boot.

[Eraser]

Hmm

[Eraser]

Also relevant

[YourGrandpa]

We agree with one another that there are good things and bad things about social media and the internet in general. If your initial assertion ended there, we wouldn't be on page 3 right now. But you went further by implying that there was a statistically significant change in crime after the internet came about. We spent the next few pages going back and forth about why one or the other was wrong. If you're not trying to convince anyone of anything, then why keep this up for so long? Surely a single post on the 1st page would have sufficed to tell us your opinion. Then you could have, you know, moved on.

But yet you and Eraser are both still here arguing your points and you're no more right than I am.

Hmmm...

[YourGrandpa]

it's that I disagree with extrapolating that to an entire generation of people and linking that to a significant change in social abilities between people.

I guess this is where you apply the Korkass arguing technique. "Entire generation".

[Κracus]

You brought up the generation thing. All we're saying is that technology helps people mingle. We can prove that because social media is a tool to help people mingle. It literally helps with exactly that.

You're arguing it's isolating people but you can't really show how it's technologies fault. You just say people are glued to their phones and don't socialize with others.

I think, that's just how those people are, it wouldn't matter if it were the internet, video games, tv, the radio or whatever. Those people would be introverted no matter how advanced technology is and the problem that made them an introvert is unlikely to be technology, it's more likely an environmental factor like how they were raised, or some biological reason. Blaming technology is like blaming video games for violence.