(December 14, 2015 at 8:31 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Trust me, I'm not a Trump fan at all, but I don't think what he said is all that unclear - "Shut down the internet in some ways in some areas." How is that unclear enough to make people think he was talking about shutting down the internet, period?

Because he then went on to say:

Quote:Trump then went on to predict a negative reaction to his calls for a shutdown of the Internet, and in the same breath completely dismissed such complaints: “Some people will say, 'Freedom of speech, Freedom of speech,'” Trump added, before saying “These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”

(December 14, 2015 at 8:30 pm)Heat Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 8:18 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: This isn't to say I support anything he said but:

Do you really think he's advocating using Bill Gates to shut down the entire internet? Closing up the internet obviously means restricting it, not shutting it down. Nor does anything suggest he thinks Gates has a switch to shut it down. This is all in context of being asked about how to combat ISIS on the internet. I mean, duh. It's like everything he says has to taken to the biggest hyperbole ever. Like when people said that he called all Mexicans rapists. What? Did they not read his speech?

Don't be so gullible.

1. I never said he wanted to shut down the whole internet, I said close down part of it, which is directly what he said.

2. No obviously I don't think he thinks Bill Gates can somehow magically shut it down, however the sole fact that he referred to Bill Gates in the midst of intending to close up the internet in some ways, the fact that it was evidently not sarcasm, that he actually thinks Bill Gates is of any interest or holds any weight in this day and age on a subject like that shows his complete and utter ignorance as to what is really going on, and how terrorists are actually communicating.

3. He's not suggesting this to directly combat their communication, he's suggesting this in order to prevent them from communicating in the first place, that's why realistically this is a preposterous solution, and won't help whatsoever. And the reason people take what Trump says and exaggerate it is in anticipation of what his opinions really are, because in every point he makes he always seems to touch back on it and 1-up himself, or take an extreme view he's made and make it even more extreme, example being; Now advocating that all Muslims be banned from the US. There's a reason all those republicans are cheering his name, they've said it many times, "I like trump because he doesn't back down, he's aggressive" etc. So no one is taking that internet comment and anticipating it to be nothing more than a feather, he's continuously proven that instead of backing down from points and comments like that he will simply push it further, and I didn't anticipate that he would ban the internet, however people who took his comment and said it was implying a ban have a large amount of justification for doing so.

And yes, lots of politicians suggest shutting down parts of the internet to prevent terrorism, however, with Trump, although certainly not directly clear, it seems to be a different scenario, when politicians do that, they don't come out and announce it, if you are shutting down a part of the internet to prevent terrorism, that almost seems like a given. However, the impression I believe many people got, regardless of Trump's previous tendencies to exaggerate claims, is that Trump is looking to censor the internet, or in other words attempt to shut and close parts down not under any direct coorelation to terrorism, but under the prevention of what "might" occur, and the prevention of what "might" occur is the same reason he made a statement saying all Muslims should be banned from the US, to prevent terrorism, that is why it seems given a different context in the scenario even though principally talking about the same thing, just like Muslims, he is not doing the common sense thing to close down sites linked with terrorism, it seems that we can infer it is much deeper than that, and is more restriction than we originally assume, however since we know his tendencies, we have already been programmed to assume more restriction will come instead of taking the statement at face value, because almost all of his statements never end up actually being at face value. 

Dude, what does the headline of the article you linked say?

(December 14, 2015 at 8:23 pm)Exian Wrote: You're right. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Jumping to stupid conclusions, like ignoring the part where I said I disagree with him about any censorship on the internet. That disagreement doesn't mean I have to strawman everything Trump says to dislike him.

I think there is a problem that is particularly endemic to this forum where if you don't believe everything negative about someone who people dislike politically, no matter how untrue or fallicious the statements might be, you are supporting them. It's extra-ironic considering that most people would probably consider themselves skeptics on here, but lack all skepticism when it comes to stuff like this.

(December 14, 2015 at 8:41 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 8:30 pm)Heat Wrote: 1. I never said he wanted to shut down the whole internet, I said close down part of it, which is directly what he said.

2. No obviously I don't think he thinks Bill Gates can somehow magically shut it down, however the sole fact that he referred to Bill Gates in the midst of intending to close up the internet in some ways, the fact that it was evidently not sarcasm, that he actually thinks Bill Gates is of any interest or holds any weight in this day and age on a subject like that shows his complete and utter ignorance as to what is really going on, and how terrorists are actually communicating.

3. He's not suggesting this to directly combat their communication, he's suggesting this in order to prevent them from communicating in the first place, that's why realistically this is a preposterous solution, and won't help whatsoever. And the reason people take what Trump says and exaggerate it is in anticipation of what his opinions really are, because in every point he makes he always seems to touch back on it and 1-up himself, or take an extreme view he's made and make it even more extreme, example being; Now advocating that all Muslims be banned from the US. There's a reason all those republicans are cheering his name, they've said it many times, "I like trump because he doesn't back down, he's aggressive" etc. So no one is taking that internet comment and anticipating it to be nothing more than a feather, he's continuously proven that instead of backing down from points and comments like that he will simply push it further, and I didn't anticipate that he would ban the internet, however people who took his comment and said it was implying a ban have a large amount of justification for doing so.

And yes, lots of politicians suggest shutting down parts of the internet to prevent terrorism, however, with Trump, although certainly not directly clear, it seems to be a different scenario, when politicians do that, they don't come out and announce it, if you are shutting down a part of the internet to prevent terrorism, that almost seems like a given. However, the impression I believe many people got, regardless of Trump's previous tendencies to exaggerate claims, is that Trump is looking to censor the internet, or in other words attempt to shut and close parts down not under any direct coorelation to terrorism, but under the prevention of what "might" occur, and the prevention of what "might" occur is the same reason he made a statement saying all Muslims should be banned from the US, to prevent terrorism, that is why it seems given a different context in the scenario even though principally talking about the same thing, just like Muslims, he is not doing the common sense thing to close down sites linked with terrorism, it seems that we can infer it is much deeper than that, and is more restriction than we originally assume, however since we know his tendencies, we have already been programmed to assume more restriction will come instead of taking the statement at face value, because almost all of his statements never end up actually being at face value. 

Dude, what does the headline of the article you linked say?

What is that logic? That because i am linking something that reported news, i have to agree with every exaggerated claim they make regardless of my personal opinions?

(December 14, 2015 at 9:14 pm)Heat Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 8:41 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Dude, what does the headline of the article you linked say?

What is that logic? That because i am linking something that reported news, i have to agree with every exaggerated claim they make regardless of my personal opinions?

Uh, no, obviously. You really love taking everything to maximum amount of conjecture, don't you? I would think that you would not disagree with the main headline though, and then pretend to agree with it until called out. I mean I normally don't link to something and say 'hey look at this' and then wait for a couple of pages to say that I actually disagree with it. Maybe that's just me.

(December 14, 2015 at 9:23 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 9:14 pm)Heat Wrote: What is that logic? That because i am linking something that reported news, i have to agree with every exaggerated claim they make regardless of my personal opinions?

Uh, no, obviously. You really love taking everything to maximum amount of conjecture, don't you? I would think that you would not disagree with the main headline though, and then pretend to agree with it until called out. I mean I normally don't link to something and say 'hey look at this' and then wait for a couple of pages to say that I actually disagree with it. Maybe that's just me.

What the hell man stop making so many assumptions about me. I literally just said the headline was an exaggeration that i dont necessarily think is accurate, but gave justification for why its probable that it could be.

(December 14, 2015 at 9:28 pm)Heat Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 9:23 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Uh, no, obviously. You really love taking everything to maximum amount of conjecture, don't you? I would think that you would not disagree with the main headline though, and then pretend to agree with it until called out. I mean I normally don't link to something and say 'hey look at this' and then wait for a couple of pages to say that I actually disagree with it. Maybe that's just me.

What the hell man stop making so many assumptions about me. I literally just said the headline was an exaggeration that i dont necessarily think is accurate, but gave justification for why its probable that it could be.

This is pretty fun. Are you now saying it's bad to make assumptions about people after defending yourself making assumptions about someone?

(December 14, 2015 at 9:32 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 9:28 pm)Heat Wrote: What the hell man stop making so many assumptions about me. I literally just said the headline was an exaggeration that i dont necessarily think is accurate, but gave justification for why its probable that it could be.

This is pretty fun. Are you now saying it's bad to make assumptions about people after defending yourself making assumptions about someone?

I gave justification for making assumptions bases on PREVIOUS TENDENCIES HE HAS DISPLAYED. I ALSO SAID I WAS NOT MAKING THE ASSUMPTIONS.

Done responding. Pathetic misrepresentation.

(December 14, 2015 at 9:41 pm)Heat Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 9:32 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: This is pretty fun. Are you now saying it's bad to make assumptions about people after defending yourself making assumptions about someone?

I gave justification for making assumptions bases on PREVIOUS TENDENCIES HE HAS DISPLAYED. I ALSO SAID I WAS NOT MAKING THE ASSUMPTIONS.

Done responding. Pathetic misrepresentation.

I agree, you did make a pathetic misrepresentation. It's big of you to admit it though.

^You got mean.