Schizophretard Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I have no idea where you are headed with that argument... Politicians use our instinct to protect children as a way to get done what they want. They try to make us lean on our emotions and abandon reason. Some day a child may drink a bottle of e-liquid and die. They will try to pass a bill to ban e-liquid with just that one case. There will be millions of bottles of e-liquid and millions of vapers but that one story will make everyone think irrationally and believe millions of children are in danger of poisoning. The government makes it appear they have good intentions but they are really protecting Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and the revenue they receive from taxes. With this story it isn't exactly the same but close. Millions of messages containing hurtful things are being received by children every day. We here about this girl killing herself and we all believe there is a national crisis! With her the politicians make it seem like this law is based on good intentions but it is not. The government is trying to get us to allow it more and more into the door of controlling the Internet. The government never draws a line it wouldn't cross, so what comes next? Well, if it is illegal to say hurtful things to children there has to be a way to know what is being said? So, the government will come up with a reason to invade our privacy and spy on our messages. They would be doing it for the children of course because everyone knows that the one thing politicians love more than money and power is children. Actually I believe most would agree that this type of action is MORE than immoral. By your definition, an abused spouse or child who can physically leave the abuser and doesn't is basically choosing to be abused. Luckily the law stopped agreeing with that type of position a while ago. I think there is a difference between watching my father hang my younger brother upside down over the stairs and make him think he is going to drop him, watching my father ask my mother nicely to get him eggs, orange juice, and then watch him dump it on her, watching my father swing a hammer towards my mother, miss, and then split the kitchen table in half, watching my father tear up pictures of family memories that can never be replaced, watching my father hide cameras to ruin my mothers vacation, watching my father destroy my mother's alarm clocks so she will be late for work, watching my father go on a rampage and destroy the house, watching my father beat the **** out of my mother with the Christmas tree on Christmas day for no apparent reason...... and a girl getting told mean things through a fake myspace account. Maybe it is just my insanity from bad genes ,an abusive childhood, and I'm thinking completely irrationally but from my point of view the girl wasn't abused. Picked on? Sure. Abused? no way! I believe it's way more than personal rights the government is supposed to be defending. Our way of life, our society and yes our mores. I'm no law person, but I think the test of any law isn't to make sure it's defending a right, but to make sure it's not violating our rights. I wasn't talking about just this government but government in general. People create governments to help them protect their rights. Anyway, I don't see much difference but maybe I'm not understanding you right. Whose test is this? My test is if it limits someone's freedom beyond just someone else's equal rights and freedom then the law is illegitimate. It's not a matter of all or none, how many more crack or withdraw because of bullying, etc. It is recognized that most children are emotionally unstable, you can disagree all you want, but most can be split open like a melon through abuse. I'm not proposing they all commit suicide, but bullying increases the numbers. It's always a question a free society has to ask itself, is the reward worth the cost whether the cost is in dollars, or inconvenience or someone's perceived loss of rights. Not everyone who is a bad driver goes off the road, yet we put guardrails up at dangerous spots because we know it saves lives. I'm not saying children aren't emotionally unstable but they are strong enough that the majority of them can go through public school ,without killing themselves, which is worse than anything that can be said to them online. And I do not know the details of the case, but whether she was looking or not (and probably couldn't help looking), I'm sure she was getting updates from her friends and enemies. Again, some children can't help it and do not inform the parents, it's a form of abuse they can not escape. I don't know the details either. Just the few things I heard on the radio, that wiki article, and this thread. I'm just going by what I'm reading so far. How I understand it is there was this girl with mental illness who spread gossip about people, those people made a fake myspace account for revenge, the girls feelings got hurt, she committed suicide, and when people read the story they don't have the proper response and think,"We need to wake up and raise our children!" but instead think,"Why is the government doing such a horrible job at raising our children! The government must do something!" Sorry - but this country did decide a long time ago there are limits to free speech. I am a personal fan of the saying that "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.", but there are limits none-the-less. Many people confuse freedom with anarchy, this is a democracy, we decide how we want it to work within the framework of the constitution (at least in theory). Countries don't decide but people do. All those people that made that decision are dead now. Anyway, I agree there are limits. The limits to my rights are your equal rights. And many people confuse Democracy with freedom. If you mean chaos by anarchy then I agree but if you mean I have no rulers but myself and the only limits to my rights are your equal rights then I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyBoyfromWashington Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Whether it's an adult or other teens, bullying is a form of terrorism and abuse. For years abuse has taken place among children, with trusted family members or neighbors. Are the parents responsible, the abused child? Or is the person who knowingly commits the act responsible? I don't understand how schizoid thinks it's he teen's fault for not turning away and ignoring it or you that it's the parents fault. I don't know the specifics of that case, but allowing access to the internet which many parents do, is not a criminal offense. As far as kids being technically proficient, that's a fact of life, adults (except for a few) can not keep up with the kids. If you are an exception, it is just that, an exception. There are kids out there better than you, they're just not yours. I believe tech will ultimately solve this, not the government, the government is doing what they are supposed to do (admittedly poorly), legislate. If you are going to quote me please quote me with the entire context intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTJoe Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) If you are going to quote me please quote me with the entire context intact. Was there something important missing? Just trying to save some space, nothing nefarious or underhanded intended... ;-) Edited January 7, 2010 by FTJoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTJoe Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Countries don't decide but people do. All those people that made that decision are dead now. Anyway, I agree there are limits. The limits to my rights are your equal rights. And many people confuse Democracy with freedom. If you mean chaos by anarchy then I agree but if you mean I have no rulers but myself and the only limits to my rights are your equal rights then I disagree. Well if you subscribe to the constitution as a living document, we still control where we as a society go. I think we agree in principle, maybe just not point by point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyBoyfromWashington Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) Was there something important missing? Just trying to save some space, nothing nefarious or underhanded intended... ;-) Just that when I said the parents should be held responsible, I was refering to the fact that they allowed (as you said) an emotionaly immature child to use the internet unmonitored by them. And if you read the article, the mother ignored the daughter when she tried to tell her mom about it. All of this contributed to what happened so we cannot hold the parents blameless. And of course the woman who did the "bullying" was wrong to do it in the first place, I am not arguing that, just that if the parents had acted properly the event could have been stopped before it came to suicide so were therefore negligent. reference: NounSingular criminal negligence Plural criminal negligences criminal negligence (plural criminal negligences) 1.(law) Failure to use reasonable care, and thus put someone at risk of injury or death. the parents failed to use "reasonable care". Edited January 8, 2010 by DannyBoyfromWashington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTJoe Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) Just that when I said the parents should be held responsible, I was refering to the fact that they allowed (as you said) an emotionaly immature child to use the internet unmonitored by them. And if you read the article, the mother ignored the daughter when she tried to tell her mom about it. All of this contributed to what happened so we cannot hold the parents blameless. And of course the woman who did the "bullying" was wrong to do it in the first place, I am not arguing that, just that if the parents had acted properly the event could have been stopped before it came to suicide so were therefore negligent. reference: NounSingular criminal negligence Plural criminal negligences criminal negligence (plural criminal negligences) 1.(law) Failure to use reasonable care, and thus put someone at risk of injury or death. the parents failed to use "reasonable care". I got it, my apologies. I just do not agree there is criminality involved on the part of the parents. Stupidity, yes, but many other parents are out there being just as reckless with their children. I think to apply the reasonable care, they have to understand the risks. Edited January 8, 2010 by FTJoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyBoyfromWashington Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 I got it, my apologies. I just do not agree there is criminality involved on the part of the parents. Stupidity, yes, but many other parents are out there being just as reckless with their children. I think to apply the reasonable care, they have to understand the risks. Just because there are others being reckless does not justify them. And if the parents did not understand the risks of the internet they need to crawl out from under their rock and seek psychiatric help. Ask any judge, ignorance of the law does not justify someone breaking it. The internet can be as dangerous as driving a car, would you hand your 7 yr old child the keys to your car? No? Then do not hand them the metaphorical keys to the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTJoe Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) Just because there are others being reckless does not justify them. And if the parents did not understand the risks of the internet they need to crawl out from under their rock and seek psychiatric help. Ask any judge, ignorance of the law does not justify someone breaking it. The internet can be as dangerous as driving a car, would you hand your 7 yr old child the keys to your car? No? Then do not hand them the metaphorical keys to the internet. No it doesn't justify it, nor does it make it criminal. My point was, any child lured away or who mistakenly give up their address has the parents as complicit because they should have known the risks of the internet, of course not? Ignorance of the law is no excuse but I think you miss my point, a layperson can not, nor would be expected to be able to, as you suggest, gauge the ability of a child to be able to fend for themselves on the wild internet. All laws have to have a test, my point was I believe the parents would have to realize their child couldn't handle it and the bottom line, unless they were treating her, they couldn't. If I pick a penny up only to find out it triggered a death by tripping a switch, am I guilty of anything? Of course not, I was ignorant I was causing a death, not ignorant that murder is a crime. Edited January 8, 2010 by FTJoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schizophretard Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 I'm just going by what I read. It is my understanding is most psychologists/psychiatrists believe a suicide attempt is done under an altered or modified state of mind, in other words, not a "normal state of mind" but one "not thinking clearly' or under duress. I guess what is considered normal or altered or modified could be argued and I made a leap to assume under those conditions, a person is no longer operating of their own free will. I'm always in an altered state of mind and yet I still have freewill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTJoe Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) I'm always in an altered state of mind and yet I still have freewill. Ya - as I said, I'm kind of out of my knowledge area here. Too many assumptions, best guesses, the Psychs don't all agree and I know I don't know. That's a great phrase by the way on so many levels... "I'm always in an altered state of mind and yet I still have freewill." Edited January 8, 2010 by FTJoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now