Spearmaster said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
"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.
"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
