Dad uses Facebook to teach daughter a lesson.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
 

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

"I am glad to hear you heartily approve of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church because it is their right."

Are you sure this is not what you said?

I'm sorry, are you admitting to not knowing what sarcasm is? Or hell, being able to read the part where I admitted I said it, but didn't mean it? What I was doing was pointing out the logical conclusion of the absurd notion that just because you have a right to do something that makes it okay to do. Proof by contradiction.

"I am glad to hear you heartily approve of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church because it is their right."

"I said you must support the WBC. I didn't mean you did."

This was sarcasm to then?

The first one was. The second is an explanation of the first. I can't believe you can miss the point when it's so clear. It easy: You were replying to me criticizing his action by saying he had a right to do it. I'm just applying that to other situations. Like the WBC.

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

I'm sorry, are you admitting to not knowing what sarcasm is? Or hell, being able to read the part where I admitted I said it, but didn't mean it? What I was doing was pointing out the logical conclusion of the absurd notion that just because you have a right to do something that makes it okay to do. Proof by contradiction.

"I am glad to hear you heartily approve of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church because it is their right."

"I said you must support the WBC. I didn't mean you did."

This was sarcasm to then?

The first one was. The second is an explanation of the first. I can't believe you can miss the point when it's so clear. It easy: You were replying to me criticizing his action by saying he had a right to do it. I'm just applying that to other situations. Like the WBC.

so rather than clarifying it as sarcasm first you tried to change what you said about me to seem like it was not a personal attack then when called out on it you dismiss it as sarcasm.

its ok these forum discussions can get heated, a simple apology would have been easier.

But for the above issue I can understand where you feel the father went overboard with his punishment, but on my side I don't see where taking away her computer was all that bad, some parents starve and beat their children for less, many children don't even get a laptop till they get one with their student loans for college if they ever get that opportunity.

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

"I am glad to hear you heartily approve of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church because it is their right."

"I said you must support the WBC. I didn't mean you did."

This was sarcasm to then?

The first one was. The second is an explanation of the first. I can't believe you can miss the point when it's so clear. It easy: You were replying to me criticizing his action by saying he had a right to do it. I'm just applying that to other situations. Like the WBC.

so rather than clarifying it as sarcasm first you tried to change what you said about me to seem like it was not a personal attack then when called out on it you dismiss it as sarcasm.

I did clarify it as sarcasm. I admitted that I said it. Holy fuck, how much more obvious can "I said you must support the WBC" be? I didn't try to change anything. I hope English isn't your first language.

its ok these forum discussions can get heated, a simple apology would have been easier.

Apology because you miss blatantly obvious things? Why thank you!

But for the above issue I can understand where you feel the father went overboard with his punishment, but on my side I don't see where taking away her computer was all that bad, some parents starve and beat their children for less, many children don't even get a laptop till they get one with their student loans for college if they ever get that opportunity.

Replace one bad argument with another!

Just because it could be worse does not mean that it was alright. Just holy fuck. What the hell are you thinking? Okay sure, someone could beat or starve their kids for less! Well gee, I guess that means just beating them is okay. Since, you know, it could be worse after all. They could be beaten and starved!

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

The first one was. The second is an explanation of the first. I can't believe you can miss the point when it's so clear. It easy: You were replying to me criticizing his action by saying he had a right to do it. I'm just applying that to other situations. Like the WBC.

so rather than clarifying it as sarcasm first you tried to change what you said about me to seem like it was not a personal attack then when called out on it you dismiss it as sarcasm.

I did clarify it as sarcasm. I admitted that I said it. Holy fuck, how much more obvious can "I said you must support the WBC" be? I didn't try to change anything. I hope English isn't your first language.

its ok these forum discussions can get heated, a simple apology would have been easier.

Apology because you miss blatantly obvious things? Why thank you!

But for the above issue I can understand where you feel the father went overboard with his punishment, but on my side I don't see where taking away her computer was all that bad, some parents starve and beat their children for less, many children don't even get a laptop till they get one with their student loans for college if they ever get that opportunity.

Replace one bad argument with another!

Just because it could be worse does not mean that it was alright. Just holy fuck. What the hell are you thinking? Okay sure, someone could beat or starve their kids for less! Well gee, I guess that means just beating them is okay. Since, you know, it could be worse after all. They could be beaten and starved!

"Replace one bad argument with another!"

You have offered no argument at all, all you gave was your opinion that what the father did was sooooo wrong because you think you are the only one on the face of the earth that gets to determine right and wrong and that everyone that does not agree with you is subject to your petty insults. Fact is that its not for you or me to decide only to agree or disagree so we will agree to disagree because there is no right answer for everyone and if you think there is I feel sorry for you.

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

so rather than clarifying it as sarcasm first you tried to change what you said about me to seem like it was not a personal attack then when called out on it you dismiss it as sarcasm.

I did clarify it as sarcasm. I admitted that I said it. Holy fuck, how much more obvious can "I said you must support the WBC" be? I didn't try to change anything. I hope English isn't your first language.

its ok these forum discussions can get heated, a simple apology would have been easier.

Apology because you miss blatantly obvious things? Why thank you!

But for the above issue I can understand where you feel the father went overboard with his punishment, but on my side I don't see where taking away her computer was all that bad, some parents starve and beat their children for less, many children don't even get a laptop till they get one with their student loans for college if they ever get that opportunity.

Replace one bad argument with another!

Just because it could be worse does not mean that it was alright. Just holy fuck. What the hell are you thinking? Okay sure, someone could beat or starve their kids for less! Well gee, I guess that means just beating them is okay. Since, you know, it could be worse after all. They could be beaten and starved!

"Replace one bad argument with another!"

Nice to see how you didn't address my criticism of your argument. Is that a concession or did you somehow miss the main part of my post?

You have offered no argument at all,

Nope, I did offer one.

all you gave was your opinion that what the father did was sooooo wrong

Nope, I did say why.

because you think you are the only one on the face of the earth that gets to determine right and wrong

I think you may have been talking to yourself at some point, because I said nothing of the sort. How bizarre.

and that everyone that does not agree with you is subject to your petty insults.

No?

Fact is that its not for you or me to decide only to agree or disagree

What is it with you? Is there some kind of vitamin deficiency that makes you say things like that? Because it's blatantly obvious I cannot decide it, nor did I try to. Or is this a pathetic way to divert attention away from the issue again? You could try a more exciting fallacy than a red herring you know.

so we will agree to disagree

I'll agree that you're wrong. Or wait, is this you trying to tell me what I'm going to do to save face because your argument is a total rubbish?

because there is no right answer for everyone and if you think there is I feel sorry for you.

No right answer for everyone? Depends on the question. But anyway, that's just a cop out on your part.

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

I did clarify it as sarcasm. I admitted that I said it. Holy fuck, how much more obvious can "I said you must support the WBC" be? I didn't try to change anything. I hope English isn't your first language.

Apology because you miss blatantly obvious things? Why thank you!

Replace one bad argument with another!

Just because it could be worse does not mean that it was alright. Just holy fuck. What the hell are you thinking? Okay sure, someone could beat or starve their kids for less! Well gee, I guess that means just beating them is okay. Since, you know, it could be worse after all. They could be beaten and starved!

"Replace one bad argument with another!"

Nice to see how you didn't address my criticism of your argument. Is that a concession or did you somehow miss the main part of my post?

You have offered no argument at all,

Nope, I did offer one.

all you gave was your opinion that what the father did was sooooo wrong

Nope, I did say why.

because you think you are the only one on the face of the earth that gets to determine right and wrong

I think you may have been talking to yourself at some point, because I said nothing of the sort. How bizarre.

and that everyone that does not agree with you is subject to your petty insults.

No?

Fact is that its not for you or me to decide only to agree or disagree

What is it with you? Is there some kind of vitamin deficiency that makes you say things like that? Because it's blatantly obvious I cannot decide it, nor did I try to. Or is this a pathetic way to divert attention away from the issue again? You could try a more exciting fallacy than a red herring you know.

so we will agree to disagree

I'll agree that you're wrong. Or wait, is this you trying to tell me what I'm going to do to save face because your argument is a total rubbish?

because there is no right answer for everyone and if you think there is I feel sorry for you.

No right answer for everyone? Depends on the question. But anyway, that's just a cop out on your part.

Then why was what the father did so wrong? I missed it among all your insults and blathering.

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

"Replace one bad argument with another!"

Nice to see how you didn't address my criticism of your argument. Is that a concession or did you somehow miss the main part of my post?

You have offered no argument at all,

Nope, I did offer one.

all you gave was your opinion that what the father did was sooooo wrong

Nope, I did say why.

because you think you are the only one on the face of the earth that gets to determine right and wrong

I think you may have been talking to yourself at some point, because I said nothing of the sort. How bizarre.

and that everyone that does not agree with you is subject to your petty insults.

No?

Fact is that its not for you or me to decide only to agree or disagree

What is it with you? Is there some kind of vitamin deficiency that makes you say things like that? Because it's blatantly obvious I cannot decide it, nor did I try to. Or is this a pathetic way to divert attention away from the issue again? You could try a more exciting fallacy than a red herring you know.

so we will agree to disagree

I'll agree that you're wrong. Or wait, is this you trying to tell me what I'm going to do to save face because your argument is a total rubbish?

because there is no right answer for everyone and if you think there is I feel sorry for you.

No right answer for everyone? Depends on the question. But anyway, that's just a cop out on your part.

Then why was what the father did so wrong? I missed it among all your insults and blathering.

So wrong? I think you missed it amongst the words you put in my mouth =O

Simple point, there was nothing worth punishing. She vented to some friends. That is not a behavior to be discouraged, bottling things up is not something to be taught. She is free to have whatever ideas she likes, and should similarly be free to express them to friends. Ergo, to punish her for that is simply poor parenting.

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Nice to see how you didn't address my criticism of your argument. Is that a concession or did you somehow miss the main part of my post?

Nope, I did offer one.

Nope, I did say why.

I think you may have been talking to yourself at some point, because I said nothing of the sort. How bizarre.

No?

What is it with you? Is there some kind of vitamin deficiency that makes you say things like that? Because it's blatantly obvious I cannot decide it, nor did I try to. Or is this a pathetic way to divert attention away from the issue again? You could try a more exciting fallacy than a red herring you know.

I'll agree that you're wrong. Or wait, is this you trying to tell me what I'm going to do to save face because your argument is a total rubbish?

No right answer for everyone? Depends on the question. But anyway, that's just a cop out on your part.

Then why was what the father did so wrong? I missed it among all your insults and blathering.

So wrong? I think you missed it amongst the words you put in my mouth =O

Simple point, there was nothing worth punishing. She vented to some friends. That is not a behavior to be discouraged, bottling things up is not something to be taught. She is free to have whatever ideas she likes, and should similarly be free to express them to friends. Ergo, to punish her for that is simply poor parenting.

And she can do all those things without her computer cant she?
Facebook is a social network, not a private one, we don't know to how many people it got posted to, yes venting frustration is healthy but posting a letter like that on a social networking site can be harmful, once something hits the net its public knowledge. Honestly I think the whole situation was mishandled by both sides and could have been resolved by simple discussion, she posted it on face book and he felt insulted and betrayed, if there is a valid reason not going to her father first, like abuse or something, she could have told a teacher.

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

Then why was what the father did so wrong? I missed it among all your insults and blathering.

So wrong? I think you missed it amongst the words you put in my mouth =O

Simple point, there was nothing worth punishing. She vented to some friends. That is not a behavior to be discouraged, bottling things up is not something to be taught. She is free to have whatever ideas she likes, and should similarly be free to express them to friends. Ergo, to punish her for that is simply poor parenting.

And she can do all those things without her computer cant she?

Yes. Which is utterly irrelevant until you give a reason she should use another means.

Facebook is a social network, not a private one,

What an asinine statement. It is private from certain people.

we don't know to how many people it got posted to,

And it matters?

yes venting frustration is healthy but posting a letter like that on a social networking site can be harmful, once something hits the net its public knowledge.

Random speculation that it can be harmful is worthless. Show that it could be harmful in this instance.

Honestly I think the whole situation was mishandled by both sides and could have been resolved by simple discussion, she posted it on face book and he felt insulted and betrayed, if there is a valid reason not going to her father first, like abuse or something, she could have told a teacher.

There is no reason she should have to go to her father first. Maybe she just wanted to vent. Maybe she didn't think he'd listen. There are relevant details you don't know.

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

So wrong? I think you missed it amongst the words you put in my mouth =O

Simple point, there was nothing worth punishing. She vented to some friends. That is not a behavior to be discouraged, bottling things up is not something to be taught. She is free to have whatever ideas she likes, and should similarly be free to express them to friends. Ergo, to punish her for that is simply poor parenting.

And she can do all those things without her computer cant she?

Yes. Which is utterly irrelevant until you give a reason she should use another means.

Facebook is a social network, not a private one,

What an asinine statement. It is private from certain people.

we don't know to how many people it got posted to,

And it matters?

yes venting frustration is healthy but posting a letter like that on a social networking site can be harmful, once something hits the net its public knowledge.

Random speculation that it can be harmful is worthless. Show that it could be harmful in this instance.

Honestly I think the whole situation was mishandled by both sides and could have been resolved by simple discussion, she posted it on face book and he felt insulted and betrayed, if there is a valid reason not going to her father first, like abuse or something, she could have told a teacher.

There is no reason she should have to go to her father first. Maybe she just wanted to vent. Maybe she didn't think he'd listen. There are relevant details you don't know.

"There is no reason she should have to go to her father first. Maybe she just wanted to vent. Maybe she didn't think he'd listen. There are relevant details you don't know."

Yes the same details you don't know

"Random speculation that it can be harmful is worthless. Show that it could be harmful in this instance."

Say the post went public, a friend shows it to a teacher, a teacher goes to a social worker and many of the things in the post may have been overblown, the father stated what her chores were and they were a lot less that what was in her post.

Nothing is private once someone else knows.

"Yes. Which is utterly irrelevant until you give a reason she should use another means."

because talking is the base communication of out species, not facebook. Facebook is a redundant form of communication.

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

And she can do all those things without her computer cant she?

Yes. Which is utterly irrelevant until you give a reason she should use another means.

Facebook is a social network, not a private one,

What an asinine statement. It is private from certain people.

we don't know to how many people it got posted to,

And it matters?

yes venting frustration is healthy but posting a letter like that on a social networking site can be harmful, once something hits the net its public knowledge.

Random speculation that it can be harmful is worthless. Show that it could be harmful in this instance.

Honestly I think the whole situation was mishandled by both sides and could have been resolved by simple discussion, she posted it on face book and he felt insulted and betrayed, if there is a valid reason not going to her father first, like abuse or something, she could have told a teacher.

There is no reason she should have to go to her father first. Maybe she just wanted to vent. Maybe she didn't think he'd listen. There are relevant details you don't know.

"There is no reason she should have to go to her father first. Maybe she just wanted to vent. Maybe she didn't think he'd listen. There are relevant details you don't know."

Yes the same details you don't know

Which have no impact on the validity of venting. You're judging something I was not. I did not say whether she could or could not go to him. I'm saying venting is alright. That is not situational, yours is.

"Random speculation that it can be harmful is worthless. Show that it could be harmful in this instance."

Say the post went public, a friend shows it to a teacher, a teacher goes to a social worker and many of the things in the post may have been overblown, the father stated what her chores were and they were a lot less that what was in her post.

Nothing is private once someone else knows.

Prove that a social worker would do anything about it. None of that seemed like anything that would involve a social worker. I mean seriously, if that's your argument I could say the same thing about valid and accurate complaints.

"Yes. Which is utterly irrelevant until you give a reason she should use another means."

because talking is the base communication of out species, not facebook. Facebook is a redundant form of communication.

That's a stupid argument. Even if we take talking to be the base communication of our species, that does not mean that we should use it above others. It is an irrelevant fact. To go from that to "She should talk instead" is a total non sequitur. And it is irrelevant that Facebook is redundant. But in fact, in your narrow minded haste, you likely forgot that it has advantages talking does not. Amount of friends that can be targeted at once, distance, and the fact some things, such as a rant, can be easier to express via a different medium. So on all counts, that argument fails spectacularly.

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Yes. Which is utterly irrelevant until you give a reason she should use another means.

What an asinine statement. It is private from certain people.

And it matters?

Random speculation that it can be harmful is worthless. Show that it could be harmful in this instance.

There is no reason she should have to go to her father first. Maybe she just wanted to vent. Maybe she didn't think he'd listen. There are relevant details you don't know.

"There is no reason she should have to go to her father first. Maybe she just wanted to vent. Maybe she didn't think he'd listen. There are relevant details you don't know."

Yes the same details you don't know

Which have no impact on the validity of venting. You're judging something I was not. I did not say whether she could or could not go to him. I'm saying venting is alright. That is not situational, yours is.

don't get me wrong venting is a good thing, I do it at work all the time, just not on the internet where people I don't trust with it can take it out of context

"Random speculation that it can be harmful is worthless. Show that it could be harmful in this instance."

Say the post went public, a friend shows it to a teacher, a teacher goes to a social worker and many of the things in the post may have been overblown, the father stated what her chores were and they were a lot less that what was in her post.

Nothing is private once someone else knows.

Prove that a social worker would do anything about it. None of that seemed like anything that would involve a social worker. I mean seriously, if that's your argument I could say the same thing about valid and accurate complaints.

It is possible that false claim and a social worker investigation can damage reputation and even cause damages is cases of business and employment and then falls under slander.

"Yes. Which is utterly irrelevant until you give a reason she should use another means."

because talking is the base communication of out species, not facebook. Facebook is a redundant form of communication.

That's a stupid argument. Even if we take talking to be the base communication of our species, that does not mean that we should use it above others. It is an irrelevant fact. To go from that to "She should talk instead" is a total non sequitur. And it is irrelevant that Facebook is redundant. But in fact, in your narrow minded haste, you likely forgot that it has advantages talking does not. Amount of friends that can be targeted at once, distance, and the fact some things, such as a rant, can be easier to express via a different medium. So on all counts, that argument fails spectacularly.

Except in the fact that Facebook is not required do do any of those things

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Which have no impact on the validity of venting. You're judging something I was not. I did not say whether she could or could not go to him. I'm saying venting is alright. That is not situational, yours is.

don't get me wrong venting is a good thing, I do it at work all the time, just not on the internet where people I don't trust with it can take it out of context

Which is not a difference worth punishing.

"Random speculation that it can be harmful is worthless. Show that it could be harmful in this instance."

Say the post went public, a friend shows it to a teacher, a teacher goes to a social worker and many of the things in the post may have been overblown, the father stated what her chores were and they were a lot less that what was in her post.

Nothing is private once someone else knows.

Prove that a social worker would do anything about it. None of that seemed like anything that would involve a social worker. I mean seriously, if that's your argument I could say the same thing about valid and accurate complaints.

It is possible that false claim and a social worker investigation can damage reputation and even cause damages is cases of business and employment and then falls under slander.

Prove it. Doesn't say "It is possible" that's a cop out. And fucking prove that a social worker would do anything about it. Fucking address the part where I point out your nonsense would apply to valid and accurate complaints as well.

"Yes. Which is utterly irrelevant until you give a reason she should use another means."

because talking is the base communication of out species, not facebook. Facebook is a redundant form of communication.

That's a stupid argument. Even if we take talking to be the base communication of our species, that does not mean that we should use it above others. It is an irrelevant fact. To go from that to "She should talk instead" is a total non sequitur. And it is irrelevant that Facebook is redundant. But in fact, in your narrow minded haste, you likely forgot that it has advantages talking does not. Amount of friends that can be targeted at once, distance, and the fact some things, such as a rant, can be easier to express via a different medium. So on all counts, that argument fails spectacularly.

Except in the fact that Facebook is not required do do any of those things

Neither is talking. Your argument is bullshit. It doesn't matter if Facebook is required, I never said it was. And it doesn't matter if it is or not. What, exactly, is your problem with logic that actually fucking follows?

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Which have no impact on the validity of venting. You're judging something I was not. I did not say whether she could or could not go to him. I'm saying venting is alright. That is not situational, yours is.

don't get me wrong venting is a good thing, I do it at work all the time, just not on the internet where people I don't trust with it can take it out of context

Which is not a difference worth punishing.

Prove that a social worker would do anything about it. None of that seemed like anything that would involve a social worker. I mean seriously, if that's your argument I could say the same thing about valid and accurate complaints.

It is possible that false claim and a social worker investigation can damage reputation and even cause damages is cases of business and employment and then falls under slander.

Prove it. Doesn't say "It is possible" that's a cop out. And fucking prove that a social worker would do anything about it. Fucking address the part where I point out your nonsense would apply to valid and accurate complaints as well.

That's a stupid argument. Even if we take talking to be the base communication of our species, that does not mean that we should use it above others. It is an irrelevant fact. To go from that to "She should talk instead" is a total non sequitur. And it is irrelevant that Facebook is redundant. But in fact, in your narrow minded haste, you likely forgot that it has advantages talking does not. Amount of friends that can be targeted at once, distance, and the fact some things, such as a rant, can be easier to express via a different medium. So on all counts, that argument fails spectacularly.

Except in the fact that Facebook is not required do do any of those things

Neither is talking. Your argument is bullshit. It doesn't matter if Facebook is required, I never said it was. And it doesn't matter if it is or not. What, exactly, is your problem with logic that actually fucking follows?

"Neither is talking"

So if you want to talk to your friends and vent talking is not required?
Last I checked in order to vent to you friends you need to communicate to them, talking being the simplest form of communication.

"To go from that to "She should talk instead" is a total non sequitur."

If your gonna claim a non sequitur try not to make a false quote "She should talk instead"
I never said that, that's your quote, No I merely stated she did not "need" facebook to vent. You twisted that to "should" with your false quote.

"Which is not a difference worth punishing."

True most likely not

"if that's your argument I could say the same thing about valid and accurate complaints."
"Prove it. Doesn't say "It is possible" that's a cop out. And fucking prove that a social worker would do anything about it. Fucking address the part where I point out your nonsense would apply to valid and accurate complaints as well."

You said it "could", cop out, be applied to valid and accurate complaints, what I am getting from you is that a social worker would not do anything in a false claim or a real claim? You also seem to assume I believe a social worker would act on it, I stated investigate which can be harmful on its own. Over laboring children and poor living situations can be cause for an investigation.

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

don't get me wrong venting is a good thing, I do it at work all the time, just not on the internet where people I don't trust with it can take it out of context

Which is not a difference worth punishing.

It is possible that false claim and a social worker investigation can damage reputation and even cause damages is cases of business and employment and then falls under slander.

Prove it. Doesn't say "It is possible" that's a cop out. And fucking prove that a social worker would do anything about it. Fucking address the part where I point out your nonsense would apply to valid and accurate complaints as well.

Except in the fact that Facebook is not required do do any of those things

Neither is talking. Your argument is bullshit. It doesn't matter if Facebook is required, I never said it was. And it doesn't matter if it is or not. What, exactly, is your problem with logic that actually fucking follows?

"Neither is talking"

So if you want to talk to your friends and vent talking is not required?
Last I checked in order to vent to you friends you need to communicate to them, talking being the simplest form of communication.

Nope, typing works. Stop trying to be so disingenuous. I clearly meant talking as in face to face.

"To go from that to "She should talk instead" is a total non sequitur."

If your gonna claim a non sequitur try not to make a false quote "She should talk instead"
I never said that, that's your quote, No I merely stated she did not "need" facebook to vent. You twisted that to "should" with your false quote.

Alright, if we agree that does not mean she should talk instead then it is irrelevant that she did not need Facebook.

"Which is not a difference worth punishing."

True most likely not

Then why argue?

"if that's your argument I could say the same thing about valid and accurate complaints."
"Prove it. Doesn't say "It is possible" that's a cop out. And fucking prove that a social worker would do anything about it. Fucking address the part where I point out your nonsense would apply to valid and accurate complaints as well."

You said it "could", cop out, be applied to valid and accurate complaints, what I am getting from you is that a social worker would not do anything in a false claim or a real claim? You also seem to assume I believe a social worker would act on it, I stated investigate which can be harmful on its own. Over laboring children and poor living situations can be cause for an investigation.

I did not say a social worker might not. I said to prove one would in this case. If you do not think a social worker would act on it, btw, then you lied when you said it was a possibility. If they would not, there is no possibility. Either you believe they could or you lied. And investigation is action.

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Which is not a difference worth punishing.

Prove it. Doesn't say "It is possible" that's a cop out. And fucking prove that a social worker would do anything about it. Fucking address the part where I point out your nonsense would apply to valid and accurate complaints as well.

Neither is talking. Your argument is bullshit. It doesn't matter if Facebook is required, I never said it was. And it doesn't matter if it is or not. What, exactly, is your problem with logic that actually fucking follows?

"Neither is talking"

So if you want to talk to your friends and vent talking is not required?
Last I checked in order to vent to you friends you need to communicate to them, talking being the simplest form of communication.

Nope, typing works. Stop trying to be so disingenuous. I clearly meant talking as in face to face.

"To go from that to "She should talk instead" is a total non sequitur."

If your gonna claim a non sequitur try not to make a false quote "She should talk instead"
I never said that, that's your quote, No I merely stated she did not "need" facebook to vent. You twisted that to "should" with your false quote.

Alright, if we agree that does not mean she should talk instead then it is irrelevant that she did not need Facebook.

"Which is not a difference worth punishing."

True most likely not

Then why argue?

"if that's your argument I could say the same thing about valid and accurate complaints."
"Prove it. Doesn't say "It is possible" that's a cop out. And fucking prove that a social worker would do anything about it. Fucking address the part where I point out your nonsense would apply to valid and accurate complaints as well."

You said it "could", cop out, be applied to valid and accurate complaints, what I am getting from you is that a social worker would not do anything in a false claim or a real claim? You also seem to assume I believe a social worker would act on it, I stated investigate which can be harmful on its own. Over laboring children and poor living situations can be cause for an investigation.

I did not say a social worker might not. I said to prove one would in this case. If you do not think a social worker would act on it, btw, then you lied when you said it was a possibility. If they would not, there is no possibility. Either you believe they could or you lied. And investigation is action.

"Nope, typing works. Stop trying to be so disingenuous. I clearly meant talking as in face to face."

Whats wrong with talking face to face? I said facebook is not required, you said "neither is talking" now "typing works", so your against face to face communication?

"Alright, if we agree that does not mean she should talk instead then it is irrelevant that she did not need Facebook."

Whats irrelevant is facebook being required to vent, she could have used the phone, sent an e-mail, texted or talked privately with friends all of which would have been more private and possibly not aggravated the father.

"Then why argue?"

I said most likely only because with the limited facts we know we cant reach a true conclusion.

"I did not say a social worker might not. I said to prove one would in this case. If you do not think a social worker would act on it, btw, then you lied when you said it was a possibility. If they would not, there is no possibility. Either you believe they could or you lied. And investigation is action."

your asking me to prove a possibility here.

"I did not say a social worker might not."

And I said it was possible, not would or likely even, that a social worker would "check into it" which means there is also the possibility that one would not.

"And investigation is action."

A miss-wording on my part, but if there is suspicion a social worker has to "check into it", investigate was the best word I could come up with.
I take action to mean actually removing someone from the home or pressing formal charges.

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

"Neither is talking"

So if you want to talk to your friends and vent talking is not required?
Last I checked in order to vent to you friends you need to communicate to them, talking being the simplest form of communication.

Nope, typing works. Stop trying to be so disingenuous. I clearly meant talking as in face to face.

"To go from that to "She should talk instead" is a total non sequitur."

If your gonna claim a non sequitur try not to make a false quote "She should talk instead"
I never said that, that's your quote, No I merely stated she did not "need" facebook to vent. You twisted that to "should" with your false quote.

Alright, if we agree that does not mean she should talk instead then it is irrelevant that she did not need Facebook.

"Which is not a difference worth punishing."

True most likely not

Then why argue?

"if that's your argument I could say the same thing about valid and accurate complaints."
"Prove it. Doesn't say "It is possible" that's a cop out. And fucking prove that a social worker would do anything about it. Fucking address the part where I point out your nonsense would apply to valid and accurate complaints as well."

You said it "could", cop out, be applied to valid and accurate complaints, what I am getting from you is that a social worker would not do anything in a false claim or a real claim? You also seem to assume I believe a social worker would act on it, I stated investigate which can be harmful on its own. Over laboring children and poor living situations can be cause for an investigation.

I did not say a social worker might not. I said to prove one would in this case. If you do not think a social worker would act on it, btw, then you lied when you said it was a possibility. If they would not, there is no possibility. Either you believe they could or you lied. And investigation is action.

"Nope, typing works. Stop trying to be so disingenuous. I clearly meant talking as in face to face."

Whats wrong with talking face to face? I said facebook is not required, you said "neither is talking" now "typing works", so your against face to face communication?

Nothing, never said anything was. I'm pointing out that saying that FB is not required is irrelevant.

"Alright, if we agree that does not mean she should talk instead then it is irrelevant that she did not need Facebook."

Whats irrelevant is facebook being required to vent, she could have used the phone, sent an e-mail, texted or talked privately with friends all of which would have been more private and possibly not aggravated the father.

Congratulations. Yet again you are arguing against something I didn't say it seems. I never said it was required. Try again with something relevant. And it does not matter if it would have been more private or not aggravated the father. The question is whether he was right to punish.

"Then why argue?"

I said most likely only because with the limited facts we know we cant reach a true conclusion.

What else could be relevant?

"I did not say a social worker might not. I said to prove one would in this case. If you do not think a social worker would act on it, btw, then you lied when you said it was a possibility. If they would not, there is no possibility. Either you believe they could or you lied. And investigation is action."

your asking me to prove a possibility here.

And? So you prove it. If you cannot there is no reason to take it as a serious possibility.

"I did not say a social worker might not."

And I said it was possible, not would or likely even, that a social worker would "check into it" which means there is also the possibility that one would not.

It is quite relevant whether it is unlikely though. If it's incredibly unlikely then that's kind of like complaining that someone might be hit by lightning. Not a reasonable objection.

"And investigation is action."

A miss-wording on my part, but if there is suspicion a social worker has to "check into it", investigate was the best word I could come up with.
I used action to mean actually removing someone from the home or pressing formal charges.

Alright. Still not seeing a reason to take that possibility seriously.

Mortai Gravesend:

Spearmaster:

Mortai Gravesend:

And? So you prove it. If you cannot there is no reason to take it as a serious possibility.

[quote]
"I did not say a social worker might not."

And I said it was possible, not would or likely even, that a social worker would "check into it" which means there is also the possibility that one would not.

It is quite relevant whether it is unlikely though. If it's incredibly unlikely then that's kind of like complaining that someone might be hit by lightning. Not a reasonable objection.

[quote]
"And investigation is action."

A miss-wording on my part, but if there is suspicion a social worker has to "check into it", investigate was the best word I could come up with.
I used action to mean actually removing someone from the home or pressing formal charges.

Alright. Still not seeing a reason to take that possibility seriously.

"Alright. Still not seeing a reason to take that possibility seriously."

So you don't take the possibility of a social worker investigation or action seriously because an innocent facebook vent that got circulated?

"What else could be relevant?"

The father did say there was a previous similar indecent.

"I'm pointing out that saying that FB is not required is irrelevant."

I was just stating that it is irrelevant in either regard, it was merely a tool that was used and the reason she got caught.

"It is quite relevant whether it is unlikely though. If it's incredibly unlikely then that's kind of like complaining that someone might be hit by lightning. Not a reasonable objection."

I'm sure the father wouldn't want to have to talk to a social worker or be hit by lightning and might take steps to avoid both, wouldn't you?

"And? So you prove it. If you cannot there is no reason to take it as a serious possibility."

Well social workers choose weather or not something may warrant a closer look and they make decisions sometimes merely on rumors sometimes its nothing and sometimes they save lives.

"The question is whether he was right to punish."

The meat and potatoes here, the father felt he was, and I say that "I was not there, I don't know all the facts, I don't know him, I don't know his daughter and I don't know the living situation" Based on the facts I know I have to side with the father because he is a responsible adult which seems to provide for his daughter which seems to me to put him in the best position to determine weather or not and if so how to discipline his daughter.

That is all I really wanted to say

Owyn_Merrilin:

I'm surprised that on this forum, of all places, nobody has answered this. It's illegal for soldiers to use them in war because of how much more lethal they are to the intended target than other types of bullets. They're actually encouraged for police officers and civilians, because they minimize unintended casualties by being less likely to go all the way through one person's body and into another's. That's why Mr. Jordan used them; it seriously lessened the likelihood of a ricochet.

Seems strange that police would be allowed something more deadlier than soldiers, is this the same for most countries outside the U.S.A. as well?

Phoenixlight:

Owyn_Merrilin:

I'm surprised that on this forum, of all places, nobody has answered this. It's illegal for soldiers to use them in war because of how much more lethal they are to the intended target than other types of bullets. They're actually encouraged for police officers and civilians, because they minimize unintended casualties by being less likely to go all the way through one person's body and into another's. That's why Mr. Jordan used them; it seriously lessened the likelihood of a ricochet.

Seems strange that police would be allowed something more deadlier than soldiers, is this the same for most countries outside the U.S.A. as well?

I'm not sure, but I'd imagine so. It's actually /less/ dangerous to use a hollowpoint bullet than a full metal jacket bullet when there are innocent bystanders present. With a full metal jacket, you stand less chance of killing your target than with a hollowpoint, but a lot more of the bullet going straight through and killing or injuring someone else. A hollowpoint is going to do a lot of damage to the first thing it hits, and then stop, minimizing the risk to innocent bystanders. If you think about it, it makes sense; in a war, who cares if your bullet goes through and hits another enemy soldier? That would be, if anything, a bonus. In a police situation, on the other hand, that other person would almost definitely be a civilian, which you do not want to hit.

Mortai Gravesend:

JWAN:
Hey, he bought the laptop therefore its his. Even if he did give it to his daughter shes a minor therefor the laptop is still his.

Hopefully she learned her lesson. She didn't the first time he warned her.

Her lesson that venting is not something she's allowed to do? What a nice lesson that is. Can't ever voice dissent to friends, no that's a mortal sin.

That had nothing to do with venting, the kid was out of line, the Father was venting. To be clear, I'm not saying what he did was right . I'd rather he just took it apart and made her earn it back.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Phoenixlight:

Owyn_Merrilin:

I'm surprised that on this forum, of all places, nobody has answered this. It's illegal for soldiers to use them in war because of how much more lethal they are to the intended target than other types of bullets. They're actually encouraged for police officers and civilians, because they minimize unintended casualties by being less likely to go all the way through one person's body and into another's. That's why Mr. Jordan used them; it seriously lessened the likelihood of a ricochet.

Seems strange that police would be allowed something more deadlier than soldiers, is this the same for most countries outside the U.S.A. as well?

I'm not sure, but I'd imagine so. It's actually /less/ dangerous to use a hollowpoint bullet than a full metal jacket bullet when there are innocent bystanders present. With a full metal jacket, you stand less chance of killing your target than with a hollowpoint, but a lot more of the bullet going straight through and killing or injuring someone else. A hollowpoint is going to do a lot of damage to the first thing it hits, and then stop, minimizing the risk to innocent bystanders. If you think about it, it makes sense; in a war, who cares if your bullet goes through and hits another enemy soldier? That would be, if anything, a bonus. In a police situation, on the other hand, that other person would almost definitely be a civilian, which you do not want to hit.

Its a carryover from the Hague convention, 3rd declaration http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp
But it was wrapped in the same declaration that banned deadly gas etc.
* Geneva Protocol signed in 1925 actually added the stuff about gas and bullets, I get them confused but I guess the Geneva Protocol is considered an addition to the original...

JWAN:

Mortai Gravesend:

JWAN:
Hey, he bought the laptop therefore its his. Even if he did give it to his daughter shes a minor therefor the laptop is still his.

Hopefully she learned her lesson. She didn't the first time he warned her.

Her lesson that venting is not something she's allowed to do? What a nice lesson that is. Can't ever voice dissent to friends, no that's a mortal sin.

That had nothing to do with venting, the kid was out of line, the Father was venting. To be clear, I'm not saying what he did was right . I'd rather he just took it apart and made her earn it back.

The kid was not out of line to vent to her friends. That is all she did.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here