You can not have a government that is both communist and fascist. Those are two different government styles, but they do have some areas where they over lap.
Oh, sorry, I mistyped, I meant to put a "or" between those two, though I'm sure there is a mix between the two that could be referred to as a Communisitic-Fascist government.
YOU KNOW WHAE? AHM SO HAE IN DA SKAH. I'M DA NEW TOUGH GUY IN TOWN. PREPARE YOUR TOLLS, AhM GONNA COLLECT THEM SOON. ALSO YOU SHOULD ALL BOW BEFORE ME WHEN AhM PASSING THE STREETS.
WHA'CHU GONNA DO NOW, LOOSERS?
Throw something yellow at you.
Guest_OneWomanArmy_*
YOU KNOW WHAE? AHM SO HAE IN DA SKAH. I'M DA NEW TOUGH GUY IN TOWN. PREPARE YOUR TOLLS, AhM GONNA COLLECT THEM SOON. ALSO YOU SHOULD ALL BOW BEFORE ME WHEN AhM PASSING THE STREETS.
WHA'CHU GONNA DO NOW, LOOSERS?
Where's ya selfie?!
Guest_OneWomanArmy_*
Whoahoaaaaaaaaa!!!!!! I'm in looooveeeeee 
P.s. Out of likes.. 
Considering what makes us human is our capacity to think and form our own opinions, making everyone think alike is kind of a bad idea, regardless if it solves arguments and ends conflicts. Saying that people who disagree with it are sub-human is simply your opinion, which kind of supports my point.
LOL. I was critiquing (making fun of) Leo's vision for an internet utopia and his responses to criticism. I agree, the internet should be free to let people be themselves for better or worse because the alternatives are not pretty.
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
@Abraham.
I think you're all looking for the word psychologist.
Which is also a word Leo was looking for. Since Psychiatrists are Medical. Unless he wants his undesirable people diagnosed with something and prescribed Riddilin.
It's actually been rather funny seeing him throw the word around like he knows what he's talking about.
I seriously can't get you guys. Yes, i didn't know the difference, Dermain did, Great. I don't mind It, I don't know everything. Then I'm mocked for it. I seriously can't understand your mentalities.
I seriously can't get you guys. Yes, i didn't know the difference, Dermain did, Great. I don't mind It, I don't know everything. Then I'm mocked for it. I seriously can't understand your mentalities.
Guest_Puddi III_*
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
Yeah. That was dumb. I'll just pretend I didn't make that post.
At Leo. With me, you get infinite chances.
So. I'm being open minded.
Whilst I believe that it is not the role of the state to dictate who can and cannot be on the internet, I am open to persuasion.
I invite you to try to persuade me that this idea of internet licencing is a credible way of tackling cyber bullying.
If you can answer my questions, you might be able to win me over.
- How will these "psychological analysts" be picked? I don't know what the term is. No such role currently exists, so I'm calling them "psychological analysts".
- What kinds of questions would be asked on the test?
- What measures would be in place so that the interviewee is telling the truth? (A lie detector perhaps?)
- How would this idea be funded?
- Which authority is responsible? Is it the government, police, independent organisation, UN institution or something else?
- What measures would be in place to deal with cheating from both interviewers and interviewees?
- What measures would be in place to prevent misuse of your system?
- Obviously, we're worried about the moral implications of this system. How will this system be run so that it doesn't infringe on our civil liberties?
- If someone doesn't get their Internet licence, will they get another chance to take the test?
- Can someone who already has the licence, have theirs revoked.
- Will there be a licencing fee?
- How will you get all of the worlds nations (or at least some of them) to agree to this idea?
I could think of more questions, but I think 12 would do for now.
1. You're right, No such thing exists today, But If the system is a go, They'd have a new and special training based on the same concept the system is based on. Evaluation. I'd like to state an important point here, Hypothetically If the project is a go, I'd be supervisor, The one who created and are maintaining supervision over the system.
2. The type of questions that will asked is as i said before, The type that tests the core of your personality. The questions aren't constant, They're based on each interviewee's personality to test it thoroughly. However, When the results are out, The results' validity will be questioned thoroughly by another analysis team in association with the interviewee himself/herself to fully evaluate their personality. "Remember when i said it was made for corporations?"
3. Yes. A lie detector.
4. As i said, It's merely a concept and I'm merely a hypothetical supervisor, I wouldn't know that right now.
5. UN.
6. They'd first be advised not to lie and to tell the truth, If they don't comply, The interviewer would have the authority to question his motives for lying, If the person was lying because they were traumatized, We'd try to help, If they were just doing it for the sake of it, They'd fail the test. As for the interviewer, If he steps out of line, The interview would be stopped, And the interviewer would be fined, If not fired.
7. A rather strict selection policy. Though i prefer the term "Resiliently difficult". The thing is about corruption of power, It's basically a corruption of an idea, of a principle. Why? Well, Because it ages, And the same vision can not be maintained through generations which think entirely different, So, My idea was to have a self-creating system, "In a corporation", To engage in a big discussion with every and each employee involved and apply the idea that thrives mentally over others. Though i don't know how to apply this idea on the internet version of the system.
8. The strict selection policy would prevent any misuse if it was applied correctly.
9. Yes. The system is open-minded.
10. Yes. And he can regain it. But it'd only be revoked if the situation could not be maintained.
11. Nope. "Free and always will be." - Facebook 
12. That's an interesting question, The thing is, People tend to follow successful ideas, Not theoretical ideas. So, It has to be applied successfully on a small scale in order to prove its worth and then expand it.
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
Hmm well it does stand to reason that if your plan is to fundamentally reorder the internet with the use of certain experts, then you should at least know which experts you're talking about. If you don't even know what they do, you can hardly trust them to be the gatekeepers for your utopia.
I pretty much remember myself saying that it's just a theoretical idea that wasn't even made for the purpose of monitoring the internet. And i have also already said that it was said to spark conversation, Not to state it as the best possible solution.
At this point in the conversation, I think it has to do with your idea that there is an objective standard for "good" people and that there are people qualified to make the judgment. That sort of thinking can "and has" taken humanity in some pretty dark directions. But after the notion has been offered that someone is qualified to decide who the "right" kind of people are (for the Internet, or anything else), any imperfection is likely to be exposed, partially as proof that no one is perfect.
Over-Simplifying. My system isn't about that at all.
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
To be fair.. I don't think people are being that bad here. If we think about it for a sec, now, if a person starts a thread, lets say me and I start it immediately by posting half naked pictures of myself, I don't know any of you but I just start posting those pics, one after another, now what would I expect people to say? "Hey there new person! Welcome welcome! You have just the body to join this forum, we welcome you!" OR laugh and make jokes? Okay maybe not when it's me but with a real stranger, you get what I mean, so when a person does a thing like that, then well... that person is FULLY aware that others is going to laugh and make jokes! Who the **** expects people to be polite and normal and NOT laugh and make jokes when doing a thing like that? Not someone normal... Just saying....
Ps.: OR a thread about "EVERYONE MAKE PLASTIC SURGERY ASAP!! or something...
I can see a point in this post. But you're basically describing TheBunz's threads, ZenMusic wasn't like that at all. You guys were merely picking on him because of his age.
Guest_OneWomanArmy_*
I'm sorry... but lie detectors?... are there going to be gas chambers for those who doesn't pass those tests then?
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
I'm sorry... but lie detectors?... are there going to be gas chambers for those who doesn't pass those tests then?
How else would you suggest we get to know who's lying?
How else would you suggest we get to know who's lying?
I don't know if you have already stated it, but what exactly does this test entail?
1. You're right, No such thing exists today, But If the system is a go, They'd have a new and special training based on the same concept the system is based on. Evaluation. I'd like to state an important point here, Hypothetically If the project is a go, I'd be supervisor, The one who created and are maintaining supervision over the system.
2. The type of questions that will asked is as i said before, The type that tests the core of your personality. The questions aren't constant, They're based on each interviewee's personality to test it thoroughly. However, When the results are out, The results' validity will be questioned thoroughly by another analysis team in association with the interviewee himself/herself to fully evaluate their personality. "Remember when i said it was made for corporations?"
3. Yes. A lie detector.
4. As i said, It's merely a concept and I'm merely a hypothetical supervisor, I wouldn't know that right now.
5. UN.
6. They'd first be advised not to lie and to tell the truth, If they don't comply, The interviewer would have the authority to question his motives for lying, If the person was lying because they were traumatized, We'd try to help, If they were just doing it for the sake of it, They'd fail the test. As for the interviewer, If he steps out of line, The interview would be stopped, And the interviewer would be fined, If not fired.
7. A rather strict selection policy. Though i prefer the term "Resiliently difficult". The thing is about corruption of power, It's basically a corruption of an idea, of a principle. Why? Well, Because it ages, And the same vision can not be maintained through generations which think entirely different, So, My idea was to have a self-creating system, "In a corporation", To engage in a big discussion with every and each employee involved and apply the idea that thrives mentally over others. Though i don't know how to apply this idea on the internet version of the system.
8. The strict selection policy would prevent any misuse if it was applied correctly.
9. Yes. The system is open-minded.
10. Yes. And he can regain it. But it'd only be revoked if the situation could not be maintained.
11. Nope. "Free and always will be." - Facebook
12. That's an interesting question, The thing is, People tend to follow successful ideas, Not theoretical ideas. So, It has to be applied successfully on a small scale in order to prove its worth and then expand it.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
I'm not convinced, but I'm pleased that you've actually put some thought into it. 
Besides. You are one of the few people who has actually proposed something.
Questionable and controversial, but a proposal none the less. I will give credit where it is due.
However as a system, I am weary about it's implementation, how it would be funded and the moral implications among other issues.
I think you're a smart person as you've demonstrated in the post, however I am not convinced this is a good idea.
Leo for actually sticking to your guns in the face of intense scrutiny and mockery you deserve at least some kudos.
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
I don't know if you have already stated it, but what exactly does this test entail?
Personality evaluation. Nothing more, Nothing less.
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
I'm not convinced, but I'm pleased that you've actually put some thought into it.
Besides. You are one of the few people who has actually proposed something.
Questionable and controversial, but a proposal none the less. I will give credit where it is true.
However as a system, I am weary about it's implementation, how it would be funded and the moral implications among other issues.
I think you're a smart person as you've demonstrated in the post, however I am not convinced this is a good idea.
Leo for actually sticking to your guns in the face of intense scrutiny and mockery you deserve at least some kudos.
Glad to hear it. As I've already said dozens of times already, This is just a preliminary idea, I wouldn't mind seeing it improved and modified by another person to better fit the community.
It has its problems and I'm aware of that, And I've stated why it has its problems. "Because it wasn't created for the internet". But as a corporation system, I think It'd fit just fine.
Thanks, Bud. I like to discuss things with you and i like your threads, I've told this before many times.
Personality evaluation. Nothing more, Nothing less.
Your own test though? Or a pre-established one like Myers Briggs?
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
Your own test though? Or a pre-established one like Myers Briggs?
Self-establishing test based on the personality of the interviewee.
That would be a very long test and it would be very case-by-case, resulting in false positives and biased results.
You can't find people that aren't bias by the way, because then they can't correctly examine the facts to come to a conclusion.
Guest_AugmentedAssassin_*
That would be a very long test and it would be very case-by-case, resulting in false positives and biased results.
You can't find people that aren't bias by the way, because then they can't correctly examine the facts to come to a conclusion.
What if i told you...
.... That i can find unbiased people.
As for results, I don't think so. If i have the right team, The system would never fail. Yes, It's exhausting, But it's the best way possible until now to create unbiased judgment and evaluation of any character.
That doesn't exist.
Humans, even psychopaths(coming from a partial psychopath) will subconsciously construct biases and use those biases to construct resolutions and answers to non-black and white questions.
And that's what these evaluations would be, non-black and white.
That's the nature of psychology in general, there's always exceptions to the rule or debate over what caused what.
Because by nature humans cannot be unbias.
But lets go with the hypothetical and you construct a congress of artificial beings that do not learn from past experience and thus do not create bias with which to judge.
How often would this research be conducted? Human's psychological landscape have a tendency of changing rather quickly under the right conditions.
What if i told you...
.... That i can find unbiased people.
As for results, I don't think so. If i have the right team, The system would never fail. Yes, It's exhausting, But it's the best way possible until now to create unbiased judgment and evaluation of any character.
Okay. Any more details regarding this unbiased team in a system that would never fail?
Retour en haut
