Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@searing wrote:
However the argument and comment was not about children dying from heart attack. If you wish to start a thread in that regard, or a general post on that, be my guest. My comment was in regard to FACEBOOK and the inherit dangers there in. Not in crossing the road, not in playing during recess, not in gym class. So if you wish to discuss twisting arguments, please look at your own examples. I posted in regard to FACE BOOK, after others had posted on the same subject.
And as i said as long as children have access to computers they will access the likes of facebook so its either ban facebook and suchlike or confiscate computers which then as i said turns it into a nanny state argument.
@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.
@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.
@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.
Never felt the need to try it maybe thats why im such a levelled individual.
Courtesy.
Bed soon and hopefully a follow up episode of last nights dream :D
The bar one has to be one of the all time comedy classic moments.
@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.
Wow that was a nice dream :)
