Belief...

[Zeb_Carter]

Should someone suspend their beliefs while reading/posting on the internet?

Would it behoove a person to "take with a grain of salt" what they read about on any site on the internet?

Are there any sites out there on the world wide web that can be believed 100% of the time?

Are there people on the net who can be believed 100% of the time?

Should anyone be believed 100% of the time?

Speaking for myself, I have posted things I know were untrue just to get a rise out of people, being devils advocate as it were. But that was a long time ago and time has past and I "grew" out of things like that.

Is what I post now 100% true? To the best of my knowledge yes. Do I research everything? If I don't know about a subject and I want to learn more, yes. If I don't give a crap about the subject and really don't want to learn about it, no and I don't post. Simple as that.

I do know that I have let a lot of learning experiences pass me by, but I'm old and sometime just don't have the strength or the interest to do the research.

Do I believe everything that's posted here or elsewhere on the net? Shit no. I'm not a turnip that just fell off the truck.

How about you? Do you believe?

 

[BoomerP]

I'm not sure if you're refering to religion or just statements in general but..

In general and especially on the internet you should read about a subject from both sides and from different resources before you decide for yourself whats true or not.
Yeah there are alot of people who say something extreme and untrue just to get a stir out of people. "Taking things with a grain of salt" will make your experience more enjoyable and less dramatic.

If you're talking about religion then I think you should realise that you're on the internet, a hub connection people of a million different opinions, values and beliefs. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. You need an understanding of "live and let live"

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I am for sure "AReligious" I have no view either way. If you want to believe go ahead believe all you want. I will not put you down for believing. I will not bother you because of your beliefs unless they interfere with my life.

No I wasn't talking about religion. Definitely not about religion.

Thanks for you post anyway.

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

On a message board, there are three responses; a thought, a feeling or an action. I tend to accept most post at face value, some more so than others. The thoughts I have in response to a post are mine so I and I alone am responsible for them. Yes it means I may have had a fantasy about a girl who turns out to be a guy, but my thoughts, my fantasies are of the girl I thought I knew.

SOme post tug at my emotions and will stir a feeling. They are usually designed and crafted to do just that. But I am the one emotionally investing. I may be elated or disappointed or angered in time, but in real life I get the same gamut of emotions. So again until I see someone's character or a pattern of deciet, I believe more so than discount because the emotional investment I make, I feel I can afford to lose.

An action, those I think long and hard, with skepticism before I commit.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

People reveal themselves, and the truth, over time and at different levels, when they've grown to trust - either the other person, or the forum.

And I won't even get into the "what is true" argument. I'll just get spanked. Hm, maybe I should head over to theegoat's thread...

 

[rgraham666]

I approach people on the internet with the same attitude I do in real life. Very carefully at first. Then, depending on how they act either open myself up or ignore them.

Existentialism is a damned useful philosophy.

 

[impressive]

People reveal themselves, and the truth, over time and at different levels, when they've grown to trust - either the other person, or the forum.

... or themselves.

However, some people never get to that point. And, even if a person never reaches that comfort level, their true colors have a way of shining through.

I like to think I am able to see drama and attention-seeking for what they are. I also recognize that beneath them is some form of pain and a true unmet need. So, if I throw compassion in that direction, I'm assuming it will soothe... something.

Do I believe everyone here is who or what they claim to be? Hell, no! I know of too many examples of identity fraud. Does that stop me from enjoying the interaction? Nope.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I like to think I am able to see drama and attention-seeking for what they are. I also recognize that beneath them is some form of pain and a true unmet need. So, if I throw compassion in that direction, I'm assuming it will soothe... something.

I get much too easily drawn into drama... learning, though!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I just finished a book about how brains work, and it appears that much of what we perceive and believe is nonsense, anyway. Dreams are nonsense, memories are nonsense, and much of what we experience is nonsense.

We muddle along because we know a few tricks (like dogs) that require no imagination, no creativity, no necessity, etc. Our world is very stable.

 

[neonlyte]

I get much too easily drawn into drama... learning, though!

Good... I've got a little play in mind


ETA: I'm reasonably gullible but have acute instinct. I become very angry when deliberately duped... quite different from allowing my gullibility to allow myself to be duped. I was furious when Charley turned out to be a woman

 

[Stella_Omega]

Should someone suspend their beliefs while reading/posting on the internet?

Would it behoove a person to "take with a grain of salt" what they read about on any site on the internet?

Are there any sites out there on the world wide web that can be believed 100% of the time?

Are there people on the net who can be believed 100% of the time?

Should anyone be believed 100% of the time?

These same questions can be asked of every form of communication. Radio bred accomplished liars, and sincere truth-tellers, as well as sincerely misinformed speakers. The newspapers, well... we all know... Same with Television.

Speaking face-to-face with people can remove certain forms of deciet from the table, but more people have been gulled by the old shell game and other forms of chicanery in face-to-face encounters than any other!

Speaking for myself, I have posted things I know were untrue just to get a rise out of people, being devils advocate as it were. But that was a long time ago and time has past and I "grew" out of things like that.

Is what I post now 100% true? To the best of my knowledge yes. Do I research everything? If I don't know about a subject and I want to learn more, yes. If I don't give a crap about the subject and really don't want to learn about it, no and I don't post. Simple as that.

I used to have you on ignore, because of it-- and no longer do so, just saying... I don't need any devil's advocates, I have my own devils thanks!

 

[PublicAffection]

Should someone suspend their beliefs while reading/posting on the internet?

Would it behoove a person to "take with a grain of salt" what they read about on any site on the internet?

Are there any sites out there on the world wide web that can be believed 100% of the time?

Are there people on the net who can be believed 100% of the time?

Should anyone be believed 100% of the time?

Speaking for myself, I have posted things I know were untrue just to get a rise out of people, being devils advocate as it were. But that was a long time ago and time has past and I "grew" out of things like that.

Is what I post now 100% true? To the best of my knowledge yes. Do I research everything? If I don't know about a subject and I want to learn more, yes. If I don't give a crap about the subject and really don't want to learn about it, no and I don't post. Simple as that.

I do know that I have let a lot of learning experiences pass me by, but I'm old and sometime just don't have the strength or the interest to do the research.

Do I believe everything that's posted here or elsewhere on the net? Shit no. I'm not a turnip that just fell off the truck.

How about you? Do you believe?

I'm a firm believer that anything in print or text is absolutely true. That said... you smell like a blubberfish.

 

[Carnevil9]

Face it: the internet is basically a huge bathroom wall, and everybody has a marker.

Anyone can write anything they want. If they are talented and interested enough, they can make it look true. Basically, you cannot believe anything.

The only exceptions are information published at sites owned by respected institutions with a reputation in the real world to uphold. For example, anything at WSJ.com or CNN.com could be assumed to have the same veracity as their print or broadcast outlets. They can't afford to let inferior information tarnish their names.

Other than that, forget about it. Everything is bullshit.......Carney (who includes myself in this indictment)

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I go with Hemingway's perspective on the subject: "If it has a voicebox, it can lie." Transfer that to the Internet: If it can type, it can lie.

 

[fifty5]

It seems that Stella and I have the same opinion: that the internet is little different from other forms of communication - they should be assessed for reasons to believe or not.

Public reputation (CNN or the BBC) is one factor, but I think both of even those are at least sometimes subject to what's in my following paragraph. Another is verifiable references.

Most stuff in most media, both personal and corporate, is there for effect. The old saw about "Why spoil a good story for the sake of the truth?" should always be kept in mind, whether the medium is electron- or paper/ink-based.

Personally, I tell the truth as I see it - but there's always the possibility that I may be mistaken.

Take that as you find it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There's the issue of context. When you read a Lit story, you don't expect to read the truth. When you talk to someone on a board like this and you feel, according to your lights, that you've developed a certain level of trust, it's not unreasonable to expect a corresponding level of honesty. It is unreasonable to rely on it though.

Similarly, when you go to Mr. Giggle's Encyclopedia, you don't expect the same degree of reliability and veracity you do from Brittanica, say.

I tend to tell the truth in my dealings on the internet simply because the results are more interesting and involving than lying. Second Life will never be as exciting as First Life.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I don't trust anyone on or off the Internet.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You can't believe everything you read on the internet any more than you can believe everything you see on TV or read in a magazine or newspaper. Some of it is true; some of it is total BS and some of it is opinion being passed off as fact.

Maybe the best example is somebody saying: "Clinton was impeached for lying about sex." That is a fact, but it is not a true fact, because information is omitted that would tend to make the statement misleading. He lied about sex while under oath, which is perjury, a serious crime, especially for a lawyer.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but this is the best example I know of, since we are all familiar with it.

 

[sr71plt]

I tend to tell the truth in my dealings on the internet simply because the results are more interesting and involving than lying. Second Life will never be as exciting as First Life.

I go with that. It helps identify for me the responders who haven't had much of a life themselves.