-
Posts
-
Report in the press today, of a fourteen year old, killing a thirteen year old female, after setting up a date to meet, via Facebook. No you cant really blame the medium, but there is not other way, these people would have been in contact with each other.
@searing wrote:
Report in the press today, of a fourteen year old, killing a thirteen year old female, after setting up a date to meet, via Facebook. No you cant really blame the medium, but there is not other way, these people would have been in contact with each other.
But thats a bit like saying if we dont cross roads we wont get run over.It could apply to so many things.
Thanks Dad
:lol:Searing wrote:
Report in the press today, of a fourteen year old, killing a thirteen year old female, after setting up a date to meet, via Facebook. No you cant really blame the medium, but there is not other way, these people would have been in contact with each other.But thats a bit like saying if we dont cross roads we wont get run over.It could apply to so many things.
As soon as i see a report, of a 14 year old, making a date with a 13 year old, to run her over via vehicle, i will accept your point. Otherwise, a little extreme as an example i would have thought.
@searing wrote:
Searing wrote:
Report in the press today, of a fourteen year old, killing a thirteen year old female, after setting up a date to meet, via Facebook. No you cant really blame the medium, but there is not other way, these people would have been in contact with each other.But thats a bit like saying if we dont cross roads we wont get run over.It could apply to so many things.
As soon as i see a report, of a 14 year old, making a date with a 13 year old, to run her over via vehicle, i will accept your point. Otherwise, a little extreme as an example i would have thought.
As it was me that gave the running over as the example and you decided to use it i could say that until i see a 13 year old sat using a pc at school or at home get run over then i am correct.
I could have given other examples such as children shouldnt be allowed to do PE at school because they have been known to collapse and die of heart attacks.
Its all down to the wrapping them in cotton wool mentality.
Again sorry to be pedantic her, show me the fourteen year old who arranges a heart attack for another child, and I would be happy to tow your line. This person intentionally used Facebook to set up a meeting, with the intention of foul play. This is not a nanny state argument. Its fact. So to trivilise it as such, is more than a little demeaning.
Maybe the data miners should consider the dating minors.
@searing wrote:
Again sorry to be pedantic her, show me the fourteen year old who arranges a heart attack for another child, and I would be happy to tow your line. This person intentionally used Facebook to set up a meeting, with the intention of foul play. This is not a nanny state argument. Its fact. So to trivilise it as such, is more than a little demeaning.
So if your argument discussion or whatever you want to call it is not about children using computers then what is it about.Because as long as they use computers they are sure as hell going to use facebook and suchlike.
And i wasnt trivialising anything it seems very much a nanny state argument to me.
the death of a thirteen year old girl, is a nanny state argument to you. Thank god, im not part of you thinking and nanny state then.
@searing wrote:
the death of a thirteen year old girl, is a nanny state argument to you. Thank god, im not part of you thinking and nanny state then.
You turned my example of a child dying of a hear attack in PE to suit your argument when i have seen reports of it happening.You cant have it all ways.Just because the deaths dont meet your criteria.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!