@ipink:- i mentioned tht be4ore...
actually this wz an example tht a topic can be complex, nd even though u will research this topic on the internet it is so diverse with so many perspectives tht it is possible all of them r wrong.....Hence statin agin internet can be wrong....nd topic matters.

Even if people have different opinions, they can also have different opinions and perspectives in a book

@theone:- nowadays where do u think the research 4r writin a book comes frm?
nd yes a book can be used if u want to walk to the library or the bookstore...bt people generally find using the internet easier.....nd the question wz about information on the internet nd the intended person who does not believe in it

There are internet libraries. They just take a bit of work to find.

Wait... so first your argument is that the internet is not good because it has so many perspectives (wut), then it's good because of that (wut), then books aren't good because all information for books comes from the internet (wut). Wut?

@ ipink:- I m writing one last time....because mods might lock it up...
is wat u read on internet authentic? My answer no.

y? Because of 2 things sources nd the type of topic
this wz followed by a debate frm shadow shed...

Sumthin about books? internet's resources r also used to write a book nowadays....so u r basically readin sumthin frm the internet...

Original question: wat do i think of the people who disagree with information on internet? I dn't blame them 4r the controversial topics bt 4r sum easy topics internet can be used as an authenthic source...in other words there is no dispute on the answer....

hope i answered all those wuts? My opinion has been expressed finally in a clear,nd logical fashion despite the bad language....phew

Okay. From what I can tell, and I have to be wrong, but you don't seem to think any resource is reliable (I'm not sure that authentic is quite the right word). If the internet is not a good resource, and books get their info from the internet, then the only thing left is word of mouth, and that is probably the worst resource you can think of, because it comes from the combination of other resources and twisting of words by different people. I still don't understand.

He means that we can get a clear answer to simple problems on the net. But for complex moral and ethnic problems, we can't rely on the net

@ipink:- like u said who knows wat hitler wz thinkin? so any comments made by any author is well unreliable....but does a talkin bear exist? well easy answer no.

@theone:- u hit the nail ryt on the spot.

Oh. You're a quite good translator. XD I agree with that, but it's not like you can get an answer to that anywhere at all. There is no good answer to moral questions. How can anyone answer whether euthanasia is ethical? How can anyone answer whether killing a person in self defense is right? And how can anyone erase those scars? Of course the internet can't answer those questions, but neither can anything else. I don't feel like Hitler was a good example at all.

It was. Hitler, like the whites believed the Jews were evil. So morally, it's wrong for us. But he believed it was for the good of the world. Kind of like someone killing Justin Bieber for the good of the world

But we don't know what he was thinking. I felt like we got past that issue last page. Anyways, I'm not really comprehending stuff very well right now. I'm kind of sick.

wow justin bieber gets killed a lot in today's forum . i wonder wat he did

Besides the crime of trying to sing with a very girly voice(No offence to girls all over the world)?

@ipink : lol i wonder hw mods live with people rehashin the same argument over nd over again lol

The way to go is by crossing information.
This way you will be able to find what's truth and what's not.
But in internet experience is important,people with exp can immediately tell if smth is 100% fake or there might be some truth in it.

@spirits:
Quote:
"@shadowshed:- Exactly my point....topic does matter in overall research....hw would u have prior knowledge to any subject most likelely through a book.....last time i checked a child does nt use internet...yet tht is....so ignorin them a talkin bear is fictional....nd determinin a cosmological constant is controversial
So topic does matter along with source.....i can give
several more examples if u do nt agree yet....i alwayz wanted to give an example about flyin fish nd chocolate"
^ nope, i'd still say that's caused by lack of knowledge. If you're saying that those scientific matters, that's because human originally cannot understand it by their own, but seeing that someone who's smarter pointing out something from they call 'experiment' or anything proof their stuff. Same as a little child who doesn't understand why he isn't allowed to eat things. The parents would say they're dangerous, and yet the dealer says the opposite. That's because the child doesn't know perfectly whats wrong with those foods. But if an adult/teenager was in this situation, then they'd be able to say which is right and which is wrong. As simple as lack of knowledge.

It's not like 100% of information on the internet is 100% true, but a lot is. For instance, sites with news, such as Yahoo! are usually correct, most of the data that comes from Wikipedia is corrct, and if you find the same fact pointed out by more than two people, it's almost cetainly more right than one person you know in RL.

@shadowshed:-
Now we r discussin semantics on hw a topic is to be discussed upon? Forgive me, bt we r talkin about whether information on the internet is reliable...nd wat do we think about people who dn't think it is reliable...(wow these topics r so specific, a little vagueness must be allowes )

How ever, ur argument is interestin...nd i would luv to follow up on it....do we have to make a seperate thread?

@spirits: don't think it's necessary to make another thread.

A source is reliable or not:
There're some which yes, and not. If you want something related to science, then the scientific journal would be reliable, and etc.

I'm talking about *you* who can say whether a site's saying true or not, if it's about things you perfectly know(take it as time traveller machine matters for example).
But then you find any else topic which you don't understand(religion matters, maybe?) too much, seeing how the site says, nodding over it. Could you tell it's wrong or not? Will you guarantee that you wouldn't believe in it, if the site's said was wrong?
If anyone who knows better came up and said things not as same as what you got from the earlier site, wouldn't they confuse you?
Back to the site being reliable or not:
check for something you know it's reliable enough(i can't give you anything), since you don't understand much, and you don't want to misunderstand from what unreliable sites said.