Wheelchair ramps. Automatic doors. Your argument is invalid.
Yup, all disabled people have exactly the same set of physical disabilities, and have no problem getting out and around to the shops. Not at all difficult to get transportation and/or parking, navigate crowds, coordinate some sort of assistance, and so on. Not like there's anyone that has challenges that are not easily resolved by special ramps and doors, nope, none at all. As long as there are ramps and doors, there won't be any difficulty at all for any kind of disabled person.
Name me one Internet store where you can try clothes on before you buy them. That's right, there is no such thing.
Which is completely irrelevant, and not even close to what I said. Most of them allow you to return items for exchange or refund if they do not fit; amounting to effectively the same thing. I've availed myself of that service multiple times.
Yup, that's sure invalid.
Did I say any such thing?
Effectively, yes; since you're treating the advent of the Internet as if it's some great world-destroying monster because people are allowed to say things you disagree with.
There's a vast difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about. Religions had a threat of eternal damnation and promise of salvation to go with it, which is what allowed it to flourish and survive. Conspiracy theories and homeopathy don't exactly have such a thing and was the stuff of weird little people that existed on the fringes of society.
Huh? This makes no sense. Are you saying that almost no one believed in conspiracy theories and "alternative" medicine prior to the Internet? 'Cause there are centuries of history, and millions of books, pamphlets, and radio and television broadcasts that prove you wrong.
Just funny that people said exactly the same thing you are saying about the Internet, about pretty much every single communication technology ever created; and yet the world is getting better, not worse. I suggest you actually take a while and study
real history, not some distorted golden-age nonsense. I hear there are a lot of good educational resources on the Internet.
All of a sudden along comes the Internet which allowed these people to get together and spread their message in ways they couldn't before to people who might never have been exposed to them before. In what way is this good?
This is patently nonsense. But assuming it's true, I'd say it's good; because shining a light on nonsense is always an important step to refuting it. The answer to bad speech isn't censorship, because censorship never works. It never has, even in the most oppressive totalitarian societies, and it never will. Better to get all the nonsense out into the light where it can be seen clearly for what it is, and critically examined and refuted.
Interesting that every every attempt to force a belief system and censor "undesirable" truths has failed miserably. Also interesting that the first thing every single tyrant and totalitarian government does first is attempt to censor speech and restrict communication technology. It's the cry of every demagogue and would-be cult leader. Restrict what people can say, and you restrict what they can do. Restrict what they can learn, and you can control them more effectively.
The answer to bad speech isn't censorship; the answer is more and better speech.
Nope. I'm not a particularly successful man, and I'm not likely to ever be a scholar. And while I don't always agree with other people's beliefs about anything, I don't consider most of them to be stupid. But geocentricism, alchemy, flat earth, young earth creationism, homeopathy, Trutherisms, et cetera?
So what? You're still making yourself the arbiter of what is proper and what is improper. I've never met anyone who insisted on censorship and other restrictions on speech and behaviour who did not consider themselves fully qualified to decide what other people are allowed to say and do. Rather telling, that. It's just poorly-disguised elitism.
You have to draw the line somewhere and not allow these people the floor, as it were. It's a waste of time and resources to allow it.
Why? You keep saying that, but saying does not make it true. This is just another
argumentum ad nauseum fallacy. Provide evidence and logic to support your assertion. Right now, you sound like just another petty demagogue insisting that he be allowed to run the world to suit his own personal preferences and prejudices.
)