The Discussion in Need of a Title
 

Listen, the internet is great... but it hasnt changed the 'business model' as much as it just speed it up. People still solve problems with the same equations, they just dont do it by hand anymore. People talk about the same ****, they just do it over a telephone instead of in person. Their 'business model' is the one we based ours on. And just because the internet is here doesnt mean it bridged social gaps (I am not saying it didnt help). I think alot of it has to do with policies put into place by these OLD PEOPLE, like desegregation. The internet just improved commincation efficiency exponetially.

If I can gather anything from your arguement, it seems more as if your assaulting an older generation because for some reason you feel as though they dont understand you. I mean there will always be generation gaps but you are kinda pushing this a little hard. If anything it sounds like you suggested some newer method of doing something to your boss, and he (obviously knowing more about the subject than you) wrote you off, leaving you bitter.

Lastly, as far as politics go, it doesnt matter how old you are. Almost any time someone disagrees with someone else in politics, within a few seconds they both stop listening to anything the other person has to say and rant... have you ever seen crossfire (thank you John Stewart)?

Excellent point. We're more cynical and realize how phony much of our routines are. From an American point of view, the deterioration of establishments such as Social Security helps to facilitate this. No one my age I know seriously expects to be gainfully employed at one company for forty years and then comfortably retire.

Part of the problem comes with people who want to return to the "good old days." The problem is that the "good old days" they have in mind are fictitious.

I do.

Very profound point for such a young person. What do you base this on?

Less knowledgeable.

Timing.

Both, but I wouldn't say manners are degenerating. I'd say they're changing. I wouldn't say last generation is less aware, but this is also harder to gauge and I'll touch on that in a bit.

Every liberal looks dumb to a conservative and every conservative looks dumb to a liberal. Its more of a perceptive dumbness than anything. Its easy for anyone to dismiss someone as less intelligent when they're given the same information and come to the opposite conclusion you've came to with it. It also doesn't help when we have Ann Coulters and Michael Moores making both sides look bat **** insane.

This could be argued back to the bartering days of old. The fact is it is drastically different. Computers cut out a lot of middle men, make it easier to invest less in advertising while also making it tempting to invest more, makes networking easier, makes global commerce almost requisite if you intend to make it big (and in that sense redefines big), and shifts lots of jobs. I would agree that mom & pop stores stay pretty much the same, but anything on a larger scale is drastically different.

But it has bridged a lot of gaps. The internet has created the most socially open collective in probably the history of the world. That alone is one of the biggest steps of social progression in history. All the conventional social structures have been tossed out the window and all is well. The internet has a certain aloofness and whimsy to it that I'm not even quite sure I fully understand but it is telling of something I've probably yet to fully understand. Its like San Francisco but crazier.

Also is forced desegregation really a good thing? Shouldn't it be up to the property owner to decide who they service and for what reasons?

Again, from an American perspective, there are all these flag-waving people who chant inane slogans (mantras?) and keep talking about we have to "restore America to its former glory" and all that jazz. The problem is that they can never target a specific time, because it doesn't exist. Circa 1776? Sorry, women and blacks (and other groups) were basically non-citizens. Post Civil War? Nope, blacks are still (at best) third class citizens and women still don't have the right to vote (and Native Americans are still looked at as savages). 1964? Well, Vietnam's right around the corner, there are still minorities and groups that are directly or indirectly prosecuted (***s, you had to be 21 to vote, women still hadn't wholly embraced the whole "feminist" movement), and besides, most "patriots" seem to hate the 60's because (gasp!) people smoked pot and had sex.

I guess, in a nutshell, there's no one time that's really worth returning to. Sure, some things may have been better fifty years ago (families tended to be somewhat closer, crime wasn't as widespread, or at least not as publicized), but is that worth turning back decades of social reform and civil rights legislation? It may have been safer to walk the streets in the 1940's, but you know, back then you could kill an African-American in some states and not worry about serving time...

...and I'm certainly not one of those people who thinks that everything is rosy and fine as it is. There are plenty of problems with society (corporations, a government obsessed with Iraq, and even though domestic workers are protected, our companies exploit overseas workers, including children, to produce lower prices), but I don't think turning back the clock (whatever that means; how would that be done exactly?) is any solution.



I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about the Internet. I love the easily accessibility of information and the fact that many elitist barriers have been removed (does anyone really believe that traditional manners are natural? Hell no; they're a way of putting people in their place), but the Internet tends to dehumanize people and reduces conversation to a few hackneyed abbreviations. As a tool for sharing knowledge and insights it's invaluable, but as a means to social interaction...it's somewhat lacking.

No the bartering days of old would have been different, because they didnt have ideas like investment, advertising, global commerce. But all of these things you mentioned occured BEFORE the invention of the internet, so all we really did was improve on what was already there. Your idea is not cohesive and all around the place. Of course it makes networking easier, of course it moved jobs around. So did the telephone, so did the train, so did the invention of industry scale operations... all before the internet. Dont get me wrong I am not saying the internet didnt do anything new, all I am saying is that every generation has some technology put forth to them that the previous one didnt have and they take the old ideas and just polish em off into newer and better ones. Thats life. You keep thinking for some reason that because you lived during this time that its the most special and different, its not. People use to get in fist fights over girls in 500 AD and people still do it today. For as much as we are different, we are all very alike.


I think more people from different nations talking to eachother on some online collective as you call it is pale in comparison to realizing that slavery was wrong. That was a MUCH bigger step in "social progression". Giving women equal voting rights and a place in the work force is just another example of a MUCH bigger step in "social progression". Not to say that the internet hasnt done any good, I think it is most definetly a step in the right direction (even if telecommunications companies want to rob you of your freedom). I also agree that it is something crazy, unexplainable, and does change everything is a profound way. I think you are caught up in the awe of it and are kinda blowing it out of perportion. You act as if before the invention of the internet man was a primate.

Ya, it is. However I am also a firm believer in the constitution. Which guaruantees that all men were created equally and further guaruantees a man liberty (a souls right to live freely). Now I am in total agreement with you that an owner of an establishment should be able to decide who he serves to and why, but if that goes so far to refuse an EQUAL man entry into his establisment and infringes upon their liberty (the right for a soul to be free), then it is WRONG. I would hope to god your not dumb enough to see whats wrong with that.

Sounds like the internet did wonders for you "breaking down social barriers".

But bartering is where the concept of fiscal value even comes from. Therefore all the developments over history wouldn't have happened without it. I'm not saying we're not derivative, I'm saying we're doing it better because of all the progress we've made. If group A does something better than group B isn't it just outright nonsense for group B to tell group A they're doing it wrong?

I would agree that those are huge steps, but I also wasn't comparing the internet to those. These men are made of straw.

The constitution of The United States Of America does not suggest that all men are created equally. The constitution of Maryland suggests it, which was written before the constitution of the US, however has no bearing on the constitution of the U.S. The phrase can also be found in The Declaration Of Independence. For believing in the constitution you sure do a great job of not knowing what its contents are.

Apparently I'm dumb.I will draw a parallel to see if it helps. If you own a house the government can't say who you can and can't allow in based on whatever principals you so choose. You own said home, that is your property to do whatever legal things you want with. Why should this not apply to businesses? If I have the right to disallow blacks into my house why shouldn't I have the right to disallow black people to utilize my service? Likewise if it is up to me if people can smoke in my house or not why shouldn't it also be true for my business?

I'd agree that this is different when it comes to the government. The government has treat us all equally and fairly. However, a privately owned business is not owned by the government.

Can I get a thread split as there are two different conversations going on?

I meant to say the Declaration Of Independence but my bad, I was bantering high. However the following is from the Constitution of the United States and DOES imply that all men were created equally by giving blacks the right to vote.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

You said "For instance we don't follow old business models because the internet changed how business is done entirely". Just because you improve on something doesn't make it wrong, and doesn't change it entirely.

Because business is government regulated, even private business.

Eleven Year-Old’s Organic Veggie Stand Shut Down by California Mayor » GroovyGreen.com - Start Today :: Save Tomorrow

Now if you have a illegal private business, as in not government regulated, thats a different story. But you cannot own and operate a business without a license, even a private one. Another perfect example would be how city governments make it illegal to smoke in bars.

Is there any other correct way to banter.

There is little doubt the prospect of American Independence is based on anything but indiscriminate equality. Especially post emmancipation proclamation.


The real solution to this argument and the question as a whole is to find a common ground and work towards it. Not debate semantics. That makes us wittier and sharper perhaps, but not better or happier.

I already agreed that the government has to treat everyone equally. However, that doesn't the people should have to.

Right, and this is what I referring to that I disagree with. It shouldn't be regulated in the way that it is. As long as the business itself isn't harming a non-consenting party the government shouldn't try to shut it down. By refusing service (based on any grounds) they're not actually causing damage, they're just refusing to help.

Also, my analogy of home still applies. It should be up to the owner of the business/building (if rented) to say if you can or can't smoke there. Not the government. The government shouldn't control what you can and can't permit on your property outside of illegal conduct. I'm also a firm believer that smoking should be legal.

As far as regulation, I totally agree with regulating businesses. The government should prevent all companies from doing unwanted harm to people and should monitor money for tax purposes. However, I do think businesses are currently over regulated. Besides, being regulated by and being ran by are two different things. If your tax payer dollars paid for Joe's Sloppy Pizzaria to exist than I would agree that Joe has to treat everyone the same. However, since your tax payer dollars don't pay for Joe's Sloppy Pizzaria than Joe should have the right to tell you to get off of his property for being a ****.

These are three things I firmly believe to be true and important.

If an establishment chooses not to serve someone or a group of someones for arbitrary\ignorant reasons their business my suffer via word of mouth. By the same token if a business is forced to ban smoking, their business may suffer. The same result yes, but the difference is in the first instance they brought the consequence on themselves. A world where the personal freedom meets accountability is a damn fine place.

are you a democrat or a republican?

Sounds Libertarian to me.

Independent actually. Socially I'm a libertarian, but I highly disagree with their theory of having a tiny government and abolishing the IRS and all that nonsense. The one problem the libertarian party has is that they're fiscally retarded.

I don't know if you can assume that. They are fiscally unproven and unprecedented but several finical experts support the abolition of the IRS and there is endless data to suggest independent citizen run enterprise is substantially more efficient and economical then it's government subsidized counterparts.

I would say that a complete overhaul of our economy in idealistic Libertarian fashion would likely overwhelm and destroy our economy but I am not oppose to gradual long term implementation on at least a trial basis based on the fact that I believe the same assumption that drives their social policy will be effective as far as economic policy. That of course being. "Give the individual as much freedom as possible without harming or infringing on the liberties and rights of another."