Dad uses Facebook to teach daughter a lesson.

[Spearmaster]

[quote/] Stopping you right here. Point out where I said it wasn't his right. Thanks!

Good than we agree then, it was his right to choose not to provide the luxury of a laptop.

No, we don't agree on the main issue. See, because anyone with some sense realizes that just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right to do it

But then you probably know your response is based on ignoring that distinction so you failed to quote me properly. You know, avoid the fact that it's stupidity of the highest degree to babble about rights when we're talking about whether someone is in fact right to do something.

Ill forgive you for only quoting and defending against one line of my previous post then.

No need, I was quite right not to let you get away with that idiotic blathering about rights when I mentioned nothing of them.

Your entire argument is based in defining right and wrong which people have been trying to do for over 2000 years and are no closer to a universal answer so your argument has no solid proven base other than your opinion in the matter, I offered an opinion as well but I also provided a fact that it was his right, his opinion is then supported by that right. your opinion is just that, an opinion, until you have the right to determine right and wrong for everyone else on earth your just gonna have to live with it.

I am glad to hear you heartily approve of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church because it is their right. And you approve of the girl's FB post because it's her right! And you approve of my argument, because it's my right to say it!

Or in other words: No, that it is his right supports nothing. That is an intellectually bankrupt position. Think before you make a worthless argument like that.

What's sad about people like you is that you say things like "You're just gonna have to live with it". Did I suggest anything else? Is there, perhaps, an issue you have that makes you reply to things that I didn't actually do or say? I didn't do anything but live with it. I think you need help.

And you still offer no defense to your argument just personal attacks and incendiary fallacy.

I did offer a defense. I pointed out that your "It's his right" argument is garbage.

And saying that I offer fallacies is nice. You forgot the step where you actually prove it instead of expecting me to take the word of someone who doesn't even realize why "It's his right" doesn't cover it. And, hell, apparently can't read an argument that tells him why it's wrong.

You argument was basically that what his daughter did was not that bad right?
I am merely stating that he administered discipline that he saw fit for the act and that it was his right.

And your reply is a red herring. Okay, it's his right. Does not mean that it was good of him to do it. Does not even suggest it was.

saying that my argument is garbage and not giving a reason, and making false claims that I agree with the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and that I need help. those are all petty arguments to personally discredit me in an attempt to discredit my argument. Fallacy

I gave you a reason.

You're also apparently oblivious to the obvious. I said you must support the WBC. I didn't mean you did. I was pointing out why it is stupid to reply with "It's his right" when I'm talking about whether he should have done it or not. Because if we look at the WBC, well it's their right. But it would still be stupid to support them against someone criticizing them for their actions by saying "Well it's their right". Because it doesn't matter if it's their right, doesn't mean they're not bad people.

And the WBC one was the only one that was part of an argument. So, nope, you got it wrong. Identifying your argument as garbage is mere rhetoric. None personally discredit you and say "And that's why you're wrong". You need to learn what a fallacy actually is.[/quote]

"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?

 

[godofslack]

He sounds senile, at 15 I had moved out, worked 2 jobs, went to college, and still went to school. And there is no way he's telling the truth. No one goes out at says that I have to work to 2:00 AM and get up at 5:00 for roughly 30 minutes of work. What is probably happening is she is working for several (considerably less than she said) hours in pointless tasks that I or any one I knew never were expected to do without some sort of reward. The fact he actually shocked on the concept that someone would pay their kids for chores is hilarious and really shows how out of touch he is with modern culture. When you take away a teenager's access from the internet you are quite literally removing them from their social life, and that is just about the stupidest punishment you can inflict as all it does is hampers your child's development.

And I laughed really hard when he was talking about the lady that cleans the house saying "You will not call her a cleaning lady, she harder each day than you have in your life" as if working hard prevents you from being a cleaning lady.

 

[Spearmaster]

[quote/] Stopping you right here. Point out where I said it wasn't his right. Thanks!

Good than we agree then, it was his right to choose not to provide the luxury of a laptop.

No, we don't agree on the main issue. See, because anyone with some sense realizes that just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right to do it

But then you probably know your response is based on ignoring that distinction so you failed to quote me properly. You know, avoid the fact that it's stupidity of the highest degree to babble about rights when we're talking about whether someone is in fact right to do something.

Ill forgive you for only quoting and defending against one line of my previous post then.

No need, I was quite right not to let you get away with that idiotic blathering about rights when I mentioned nothing of them.

Your entire argument is based in defining right and wrong which people have been trying to do for over 2000 years and are no closer to a universal answer so your argument has no solid proven base other than your opinion in the matter, I offered an opinion as well but I also provided a fact that it was his right, his opinion is then supported by that right. your opinion is just that, an opinion, until you have the right to determine right and wrong for everyone else on earth your just gonna have to live with it.

I am glad to hear you heartily approve of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church because it is their right. And you approve of the girl's FB post because it's her right! And you approve of my argument, because it's my right to say it!

Or in other words: No, that it is his right supports nothing. That is an intellectually bankrupt position. Think before you make a worthless argument like that.

What's sad about people like you is that you say things like "You're just gonna have to live with it". Did I suggest anything else? Is there, perhaps, an issue you have that makes you reply to things that I didn't actually do or say? I didn't do anything but live with it. I think you need help.

And you still offer no defense to your argument just personal attacks and incendiary fallacy.

I did offer a defense. I pointed out that your "It's his right" argument is garbage.

And saying that I offer fallacies is nice. You forgot the step where you actually prove it instead of expecting me to take the word of someone who doesn't even realize why "It's his right" doesn't cover it. And, hell, apparently can't read an argument that tells him why it's wrong.

You argument was basically that what his daughter did was not that bad right?
I am merely stating that he administered discipline that he saw fit for the act and that it was his right.

And your reply is a red herring. Okay, it's his right. Does not mean that it was good of him to do it. Does not even suggest it was.

saying that my argument is garbage and not giving a reason, and making false claims that I agree with the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and that I need help. those are all petty arguments to personally discredit me in an attempt to discredit my argument. Fallacy

I gave you a reason.

You're also apparently oblivious to the obvious. I said you must support the WBC. I didn't mean you did. I was pointing out why it is stupid to reply with "It's his right" when I'm talking about whether he should have done it or not. Because if we look at the WBC, well it's their right. But it would still be stupid to support them against someone criticizing them for their actions by saying "Well it's their right". Because it doesn't matter if it's their right, doesn't mean they're not bad people.

And the WBC one was the only one that was part of an argument. So, nope, you got it wrong. Identifying your argument as garbage is mere rhetoric. None personally discredit you and say "And that's why you're wrong". You need to learn what a fallacy actually is.

"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.[/quote]

"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?

 

[Spearmaster]

[quote/] Stopping you right here. Point out where I said it wasn't his right. Thanks!

Good than we agree then, it was his right to choose not to provide the luxury of a laptop.

No, we don't agree on the main issue. See, because anyone with some sense realizes that just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right to do it

But then you probably know your response is based on ignoring that distinction so you failed to quote me properly. You know, avoid the fact that it's stupidity of the highest degree to babble about rights when we're talking about whether someone is in fact right to do something.

Ill forgive you for only quoting and defending against one line of my previous post then.

No need, I was quite right not to let you get away with that idiotic blathering about rights when I mentioned nothing of them.

Your entire argument is based in defining right and wrong which people have been trying to do for over 2000 years and are no closer to a universal answer so your argument has no solid proven base other than your opinion in the matter, I offered an opinion as well but I also provided a fact that it was his right, his opinion is then supported by that right. your opinion is just that, an opinion, until you have the right to determine right and wrong for everyone else on earth your just gonna have to live with it.

I am glad to hear you heartily approve of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church because it is their right. And you approve of the girl's FB post because it's her right! And you approve of my argument, because it's my right to say it!

Or in other words: No, that it is his right supports nothing. That is an intellectually bankrupt position. Think before you make a worthless argument like that.

What's sad about people like you is that you say things like "You're just gonna have to live with it". Did I suggest anything else? Is there, perhaps, an issue you have that makes you reply to things that I didn't actually do or say? I didn't do anything but live with it. I think you need help.

And you still offer no defense to your argument just personal attacks and incendiary fallacy.

I did offer a defense. I pointed out that your "It's his right" argument is garbage.

And saying that I offer fallacies is nice. You forgot the step where you actually prove it instead of expecting me to take the word of someone who doesn't even realize why "It's his right" doesn't cover it. And, hell, apparently can't read an argument that tells him why it's wrong.

You argument was basically that what his daughter did was not that bad right?
I am merely stating that he administered discipline that he saw fit for the act and that it was his right.

And your reply is a red herring. Okay, it's his right. Does not mean that it was good of him to do it. Does not even suggest it was.

saying that my argument is garbage and not giving a reason, and making false claims that I agree with the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and that I need help. those are all petty arguments to personally discredit me in an attempt to discredit my argument. Fallacy

I gave you a reason.

You're also apparently oblivious to the obvious. I said you must support the WBC. I didn't mean you did. I was pointing out why it is stupid to reply with "It's his right" when I'm talking about whether he should have done it or not. Because if we look at the WBC, well it's their right. But it would still be stupid to support them against someone criticizing them for their actions by saying "Well it's their right". Because it doesn't matter if it's their right, doesn't mean they're not bad people.

And the WBC one was the only one that was part of an argument. So, nope, you got it wrong. Identifying your argument as garbage is mere rhetoric. None personally discredit you and say "And that's why you're wrong". You need to learn what a fallacy actually is.

"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.[/quote]

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]

[quote/] Stopping you right here. Point out where I said it wasn't his right. Thanks!

Good than we agree then, it was his right to choose not to provide the luxury of a laptop.

No, we don't agree on the main issue. See, because anyone with some sense realizes that just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right to do it

But then you probably know your response is based on ignoring that distinction so you failed to quote me properly. You know, avoid the fact that it's stupidity of the highest degree to babble about rights when we're talking about whether someone is in fact right to do something.

Ill forgive you for only quoting and defending against one line of my previous post then.

No need, I was quite right not to let you get away with that idiotic blathering about rights when I mentioned nothing of them.

Your entire argument is based in defining right and wrong which people have been trying to do for over 2000 years and are no closer to a universal answer so your argument has no solid proven base other than your opinion in the matter, I offered an opinion as well but I also provided a fact that it was his right, his opinion is then supported by that right. your opinion is just that, an opinion, until you have the right to determine right and wrong for everyone else on earth your just gonna have to live with it.

I am glad to hear you heartily approve of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church because it is their right. And you approve of the girl's FB post because it's her right! And you approve of my argument, because it's my right to say it!

Or in other words: No, that it is his right supports nothing. That is an intellectually bankrupt position. Think before you make a worthless argument like that.

What's sad about people like you is that you say things like "You're just gonna have to live with it". Did I suggest anything else? Is there, perhaps, an issue you have that makes you reply to things that I didn't actually do or say? I didn't do anything but live with it. I think you need help.

And you still offer no defense to your argument just personal attacks and incendiary fallacy.

I did offer a defense. I pointed out that your "It's his right" argument is garbage.

And saying that I offer fallacies is nice. You forgot the step where you actually prove it instead of expecting me to take the word of someone who doesn't even realize why "It's his right" doesn't cover it. And, hell, apparently can't read an argument that tells him why it's wrong.

You argument was basically that what his daughter did was not that bad right?
I am merely stating that he administered discipline that he saw fit for the act and that it was his right.

And your reply is a red herring. Okay, it's his right. Does not mean that it was good of him to do it. Does not even suggest it was.

saying that my argument is garbage and not giving a reason, and making false claims that I agree with the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and that I need help. those are all petty arguments to personally discredit me in an attempt to discredit my argument. Fallacy

I gave you a reason.

You're also apparently oblivious to the obvious. I said you must support the WBC. I didn't mean you did. I was pointing out why it is stupid to reply with "It's his right" when I'm talking about whether he should have done it or not. Because if we look at the WBC, well it's their right. But it would still be stupid to support them against someone criticizing them for their actions by saying "Well it's their right". Because it doesn't matter if it's their right, doesn't mean they're not bad people.

And the WBC one was the only one that was part of an argument. So, nope, you got it wrong. Identifying your argument as garbage is mere rhetoric. None personally discredit you and say "And that's why you're wrong". You need to learn what a fallacy actually is.

"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.

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![/quote]

"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]

[quote/] Stopping you right here. Point out where I said it wasn't his right. Thanks!

Good than we agree then, it was his right to choose not to provide the luxury of a laptop.

No, we don't agree on the main issue. See, because anyone with some sense realizes that just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right to do it

But then you probably know your response is based on ignoring that distinction so you failed to quote me properly. You know, avoid the fact that it's stupidity of the highest degree to babble about rights when we're talking about whether someone is in fact right to do something.

Ill forgive you for only quoting and defending against one line of my previous post then.

No need, I was quite right not to let you get away with that idiotic blathering about rights when I mentioned nothing of them.

Your entire argument is based in defining right and wrong which people have been trying to do for over 2000 years and are no closer to a universal answer so your argument has no solid proven base other than your opinion in the matter, I offered an opinion as well but I also provided a fact that it was his right, his opinion is then supported by that right. your opinion is just that, an opinion, until you have the right to determine right and wrong for everyone else on earth your just gonna have to live with it.

I am glad to hear you heartily approve of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church because it is their right. And you approve of the girl's FB post because it's her right! And you approve of my argument, because it's my right to say it!

Or in other words: No, that it is his right supports nothing. That is an intellectually bankrupt position. Think before you make a worthless argument like that.

What's sad about people like you is that you say things like "You're just gonna have to live with it". Did I suggest anything else? Is there, perhaps, an issue you have that makes you reply to things that I didn't actually do or say? I didn't do anything but live with it. I think you need help.

And you still offer no defense to your argument just personal attacks and incendiary fallacy.

I did offer a defense. I pointed out that your "It's his right" argument is garbage.

And saying that I offer fallacies is nice. You forgot the step where you actually prove it instead of expecting me to take the word of someone who doesn't even realize why "It's his right" doesn't cover it. And, hell, apparently can't read an argument that tells him why it's wrong.

You argument was basically that what his daughter did was not that bad right?
I am merely stating that he administered discipline that he saw fit for the act and that it was his right.

And your reply is a red herring. Okay, it's his right. Does not mean that it was good of him to do it. Does not even suggest it was.

saying that my argument is garbage and not giving a reason, and making false claims that I agree with the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and that I need help. those are all petty arguments to personally discredit me in an attempt to discredit my argument. Fallacy

I gave you a reason.

You're also apparently oblivious to the obvious. I said you must support the WBC. I didn't mean you did. I was pointing out why it is stupid to reply with "It's his right" when I'm talking about whether he should have done it or not. Because if we look at the WBC, well it's their right. But it would still be stupid to support them against someone criticizing them for their actions by saying "Well it's their right". Because it doesn't matter if it's their right, doesn't mean they're not bad people.

And the WBC one was the only one that was part of an argument. So, nope, you got it wrong. Identifying your argument as garbage is mere rhetoric. None personally discredit you and say "And that's why you're wrong". You need to learn what a fallacy actually is.

"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.

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.[/quote]

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

 

[Spearmaster]

[quote/] Stopping you right here. Point out where I said it wasn't his right. Thanks!

Good than we agree then, it was his right to choose not to provide the luxury of a laptop.

No, we don't agree on the main issue. See, because anyone with some sense realizes that just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right to do it

But then you probably know your response is based on ignoring that distinction so you failed to quote me properly. You know, avoid the fact that it's stupidity of the highest degree to babble about rights when we're talking about whether someone is in fact right to do something.

Ill forgive you for only quoting and defending against one line of my previous post then.

No need, I was quite right not to let you get away with that idiotic blathering about rights when I mentioned nothing of them.

Your entire argument is based in defining right and wrong which people have been trying to do for over 2000 years and are no closer to a universal answer so your argument has no solid proven base other than your opinion in the matter, I offered an opinion as well but I also provided a fact that it was his right, his opinion is then supported by that right. your opinion is just that, an opinion, until you have the right to determine right and wrong for everyone else on earth your just gonna have to live with it.

I am glad to hear you heartily approve of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church because it is their right. And you approve of the girl's FB post because it's her right! And you approve of my argument, because it's my right to say it!

Or in other words: No, that it is his right supports nothing. That is an intellectually bankrupt position. Think before you make a worthless argument like that.

What's sad about people like you is that you say things like "You're just gonna have to live with it". Did I suggest anything else? Is there, perhaps, an issue you have that makes you reply to things that I didn't actually do or say? I didn't do anything but live with it. I think you need help.

And you still offer no defense to your argument just personal attacks and incendiary fallacy.

I did offer a defense. I pointed out that your "It's his right" argument is garbage.

And saying that I offer fallacies is nice. You forgot the step where you actually prove it instead of expecting me to take the word of someone who doesn't even realize why "It's his right" doesn't cover it. And, hell, apparently can't read an argument that tells him why it's wrong.

You argument was basically that what his daughter did was not that bad right?
I am merely stating that he administered discipline that he saw fit for the act and that it was his right.

And your reply is a red herring. Okay, it's his right. Does not mean that it was good of him to do it. Does not even suggest it was.

saying that my argument is garbage and not giving a reason, and making false claims that I agree with the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and that I need help. those are all petty arguments to personally discredit me in an attempt to discredit my argument. Fallacy

I gave you a reason.

You're also apparently oblivious to the obvious. I said you must support the WBC. I didn't mean you did. I was pointing out why it is stupid to reply with "It's his right" when I'm talking about whether he should have done it or not. Because if we look at the WBC, well it's their right. But it would still be stupid to support them against someone criticizing them for their actions by saying "Well it's their right". Because it doesn't matter if it's their right, doesn't mean they're not bad people.

And the WBC one was the only one that was part of an argument. So, nope, you got it wrong. Identifying your argument as garbage is mere rhetoric. None personally discredit you and say "And that's why you're wrong". You need to learn what a fallacy actually is.

"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.

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.

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.[/quote]

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]

[quote/] Stopping you right here. Point out where I said it wasn't his right. Thanks!

Good than we agree then, it was his right to choose not to provide the luxury of a laptop.

No, we don't agree on the main issue. See, because anyone with some sense realizes that just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right to do it

But then you probably know your response is based on ignoring that distinction so you failed to quote me properly. You know, avoid the fact that it's stupidity of the highest degree to babble about rights when we're talking about whether someone is in fact right to do something.

Ill forgive you for only quoting and defending against one line of my previous post then.

No need, I was quite right not to let you get away with that idiotic blathering about rights when I mentioned nothing of them.

Your entire argument is based in defining right and wrong which people have been trying to do for over 2000 years and are no closer to a universal answer so your argument has no solid proven base other than your opinion in the matter, I offered an opinion as well but I also provided a fact that it was his right, his opinion is then supported by that right. your opinion is just that, an opinion, until you have the right to determine right and wrong for everyone else on earth your just gonna have to live with it.

I am glad to hear you heartily approve of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church because it is their right. And you approve of the girl's FB post because it's her right! And you approve of my argument, because it's my right to say it!

Or in other words: No, that it is his right supports nothing. That is an intellectually bankrupt position. Think before you make a worthless argument like that.

What's sad about people like you is that you say things like "You're just gonna have to live with it". Did I suggest anything else? Is there, perhaps, an issue you have that makes you reply to things that I didn't actually do or say? I didn't do anything but live with it. I think you need help.

And you still offer no defense to your argument just personal attacks and incendiary fallacy.

I did offer a defense. I pointed out that your "It's his right" argument is garbage.

And saying that I offer fallacies is nice. You forgot the step where you actually prove it instead of expecting me to take the word of someone who doesn't even realize why "It's his right" doesn't cover it. And, hell, apparently can't read an argument that tells him why it's wrong.

You argument was basically that what his daughter did was not that bad right?
I am merely stating that he administered discipline that he saw fit for the act and that it was his right.

And your reply is a red herring. Okay, it's his right. Does not mean that it was good of him to do it. Does not even suggest it was.

saying that my argument is garbage and not giving a reason, and making false claims that I agree with the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and that I need help. those are all petty arguments to personally discredit me in an attempt to discredit my argument. Fallacy

I gave you a reason.

You're also apparently oblivious to the obvious. I said you must support the WBC. I didn't mean you did. I was pointing out why it is stupid to reply with "It's his right" when I'm talking about whether he should have done it or not. Because if we look at the WBC, well it's their right. But it would still be stupid to support them against someone criticizing them for their actions by saying "Well it's their right". Because it doesn't matter if it's their right, doesn't mean they're not bad people.

And the WBC one was the only one that was part of an argument. So, nope, you got it wrong. Identifying your argument as garbage is mere rhetoric. None personally discredit you and say "And that's why you're wrong". You need to learn what a fallacy actually is.

"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.

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.

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.[/quote]

"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]

[quote/] Stopping you right here. Point out where I said it wasn't his right. Thanks!

Good than we agree then, it was his right to choose not to provide the luxury of a laptop.

No, we don't agree on the main issue. See, because anyone with some sense realizes that just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right to do it

But then you probably know your response is based on ignoring that distinction so you failed to quote me properly. You know, avoid the fact that it's stupidity of the highest degree to babble about rights when we're talking about whether someone is in fact right to do something.

Ill forgive you for only quoting and defending against one line of my previous post then.

No need, I was quite right not to let you get away with that idiotic blathering about rights when I mentioned nothing of them.

Your entire argument is based in defining right and wrong which people have been trying to do for over 2000 years and are no closer to a universal answer so your argument has no solid proven base other than your opinion in the matter, I offered an opinion as well but I also provided a fact that it was his right, his opinion is then supported by that right. your opinion is just that, an opinion, until you have the right to determine right and wrong for everyone else on earth your just gonna have to live with it.

I am glad to hear you heartily approve of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church because it is their right. And you approve of the girl's FB post because it's her right! And you approve of my argument, because it's my right to say it!

Or in other words: No, that it is his right supports nothing. That is an intellectually bankrupt position. Think before you make a worthless argument like that.

What's sad about people like you is that you say things like "You're just gonna have to live with it". Did I suggest anything else? Is there, perhaps, an issue you have that makes you reply to things that I didn't actually do or say? I didn't do anything but live with it. I think you need help.

And you still offer no defense to your argument just personal attacks and incendiary fallacy.

I did offer a defense. I pointed out that your "It's his right" argument is garbage.

And saying that I offer fallacies is nice. You forgot the step where you actually prove it instead of expecting me to take the word of someone who doesn't even realize why "It's his right" doesn't cover it. And, hell, apparently can't read an argument that tells him why it's wrong.

You argument was basically that what his daughter did was not that bad right?
I am merely stating that he administered discipline that he saw fit for the act and that it was his right.

And your reply is a red herring. Okay, it's his right. Does not mean that it was good of him to do it. Does not even suggest it was.

saying that my argument is garbage and not giving a reason, and making false claims that I agree with the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church and that I need help. those are all petty arguments to personally discredit me in an attempt to discredit my argument. Fallacy

I gave you a reason.

You're also apparently oblivious to the obvious. I said you must support the WBC. I didn't mean you did. I was pointing out why it is stupid to reply with "It's his right" when I'm talking about whether he should have done it or not. Because if we look at the WBC, well it's their right. But it would still be stupid to support them against someone criticizing them for their actions by saying "Well it's their right". Because it doesn't matter if it's their right, doesn't mean they're not bad people.

And the WBC one was the only one that was part of an argument. So, nope, you got it wrong. Identifying your argument as garbage is mere rhetoric. None personally discredit you and say "And that's why you're wrong". You need to learn what a fallacy actually is.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.[/quote]

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]

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?

"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]

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?

"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.