(December 14, 2015 at 8:41 pm)CapnAwesome 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?(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?
Which is better:
To die with ignorance, or to live with intelligence?
Truth doesn't accommodate to personal opinions.
The choice is yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is God and there is man, it's only a matter of who created whom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more questions you ask, the more you realize that disagreement is inevitable, and communication of this disagreement, irrelevant.