Dumbing Down

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Dumbing Down
85
Tue, 06-08-2010 - 4:50pm

In a recent commencement address, Obama worried about too much information being available via the Internet.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
In reply to: galanie
Fri, 06-11-2010 - 12:28pm

No she's not. She claims that this draft is an attempt by government to reinvent journalism, whereas it's intended purpose appears rather benign:

"We note that this draft does not represent conclusions or recommendations by the Commission or FTC staff; it is solely for purposes of discussion, in particular at FTC roundtable discussions to be held on June 15, 2010, at the National Press Club."

I'll revisit the debate when conclusions or recommendations are made. I think the current draft has some good proposals and some bad ones.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
In reply to: galanie
Fri, 06-11-2010 - 1:24pm

Name calling and labeling (terms such as "whackjob") do not constitute legitimate debate; usually they are resorted to by those who cannot make a fact-based argument.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
In reply to: galanie
Fri, 06-11-2010 - 1:29pm

<>

It's not name calling. It's an adjective for certain websites/sources.

What I see are talking points put out by the far far right about how big bad Obama is going to take away freedom of speech rights from the people and the airwaves when nothing like that has been done, nor is it being contemplated, and in fact Congress has ensured that the Fairness Doctrine isn't going to happen (yes, indeedy, google is your friend).

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
In reply to: galanie
Fri, 06-11-2010 - 2:16pm

Additional

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
In reply to: galanie
Fri, 06-11-2010 - 3:20pm

"Conservatives have been rightly worried that the Obama administration would target the 2nd Amendment and try to take away our gun rights."

The very first sentence isn't true. Why should I believe anything that comes after?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
In reply to: galanie
Fri, 06-11-2010 - 4:22pm

The very first sentence isn't true. Why should I believe anything that comes after?


LOL! I'm trying to follow the logic... you disagree with an opinion so everything else, sight unseen, is untrue. I hope they didn't sneak a 2+2=4 in there, or you logic system is completely destroyed!


But it is quite a convenient system. You can dismiss the entire article, with absolutely nothing to back you up, just by disagreeing with one sentence.


Hey, Obama said he would close Gitmo in 1 year, I guess I can firmly dismiss everything else he says as a lie from then on. Thanks.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2009
In reply to: galanie
Fri, 06-11-2010 - 4:26pm

<>

It saves me wasting my time searching for maybe a kernel of truth in a whole lot of biased nonsensical rhetoric. What's so difficult about putting forth a source that simply lays out the facts without the necessity to wade through a bunch of lies, half-truths, and crazy opinions?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
In reply to: galanie
Sat, 06-12-2010 - 7:52am
FTC to “reinvent” journalism
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2010
In reply to: galanie
Sat, 06-12-2010 - 12:43pm
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
In reply to: galanie
Sat, 06-12-2010 - 10:55pm
Great article!

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

Pages