Stupid Questions

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
We had kids at our high school who would walk around and their pants would fall down showing their ***** and other things. That's why they had to go to uniforms here, which costs the schools even more money.

There are laws against exposure. I don't see the difference really.

There isn't a difference. The morons just don't know how to apply laws.

The city I used to work in is the wealthiest and most educated part of the state. They had a littering law in effect, but noticed a lot of people were throwing cigarette butts on the ground. So, they passed a law making it illegal to throw butts on the ground. The fine is even the same.

I remember a story in the Midwest a few years ago about a kid hanging herself after having been bullied by her friend's mom on facebook. The mom pretended she was a boy who liked the kid, then broke her heart as revenge for a falling out between the girl and her daughter. A lot of talk followed about how to deal with online harassment.

Um...how about the same way you deal with non-online harassment you ****ing mongoloids?
 
There isn't a difference. The morons just don't know how to apply laws.

The city I used to work in is the wealthiest and most educated part of the state. They had a littering law in effect, but noticed a lot of people were throwing cigarette butts on the ground. So, they passed a law making it illegal to throw butts on the ground. The fine is even the same.

I remember a story in the Midwest a few years ago about a kid hanging herself after having been bullied by her friend's mom on facebook. The mom pretended she was a boy who liked the kid, then broke her heart as revenge for a falling out between the girl and her daughter. A lot of talk followed about how to deal with online harassment.

Um...how about the same way you deal with non-online harassment you ****ing mongoloids?

People have to choose to go online to be harassed online, so it isn't the same. Online is an entirely artificial world. The real world on the other hand, is well, real. People who get upset about online harassment put far too much stock in the validity of the online experience.
In the case you mentioned it wasn't a real boy. How stupid can a person be to have their heart broken by someone who doesn't exist? The girl who hung herself needed better parenting, to give her better judgment. If it wasn't the faux beau scenario, it would likely have been something else.
I agree on the cigarette butt issue though.
 
Last edited:
People have to choose to go online to be harassed online, so it isn't the same. Online is an entirely artificial world. The real world on the other hand, is well, real. People who get upset about online harassment put far too much stock in the validity of the online experience.
In the case you mentioned it wasn't a real boy. How stupid can a person be to have their heart broken by someone who doesn't exist? The girl who hung herself needed better parenting, to give her better judgment. If it wasn't the faux beau scenario, it would likely have been something else.
I agree on the cigarette butt issue though.

By that measure this board might be considered an artificial world. And yet the above post is a reflection of idiocy that exists in the real world. To wit, the complete lack of comprehension that the boundaries that separate some online communities from some physical world communities are fluid.
 
By that measure this board might be considered an artificial world. And yet the above post is a reflection of idiocy that exists in the real world. To wit, the complete lack of comprehension that the boundaries that separate some online communities from some physical world communities are fluid.

You have to have a computer and have an online connection and search for harassment online. In the real world, no computer is needed, nor online connection. You don't have to looking for harassment. Harassment comes to you. Online is completely optional. For example, if Middle Eastern countries don't like the sexual content on the internet, they don't have to go onto the internet to see it, because after all, the internet was invented by countries that favor sexual content. The real world is not optional. It is all there is, and one has no choice unless one stays indoors 24/7.

The fluidity of the boundaries that separate online communities from physical ones are determined entirely by how a person chooses to interact with the internet, or whether they interact with it at all.
For the record, I do not believe that the internet is a real and completely valid part of human life. I think it is a phase. I see it as a temporary optional diversion from real life. I lived my first 25 years with no internet, and almost no interaction with a computer, totaling maybe 2 hours. I know that life exists without it. I played outside as a child and grew up fit. I didn't sit at the computer all day and get fat like such a greater percentage of children do who grew up after the internet.

One day, the internet will pass away.
 
Last edited:
People have to choose to go online to be harassed online, so it isn't the same. Online is an entirely artificial world. The real world on the other hand, is well, real. People who get upset about online harassment put far too much stock in the validity of the online experience.
In the case you mentioned it wasn't a real boy. How stupid can a person be to have their heart broken by someone who doesn't exist? The girl who hung herself needed better parenting, to give her better judgment. If it wasn't the faux beau scenario, it would likely have been something else.
I agree on the cigarette butt issue though.

Virtual or no there was a person at the other end of the keyboard telling a very influential kid nice things about herself. While I agree that she could've probably had better parenting, it's moronic of you to just blame her and her parents. What about the **** and the **** mother who thought it'd be funny to humiliate a little girl publicly?
 
Thank you, Lejaun and Nam.

There is absolutely zero significant difference between human interactions in person, and human interactions online. Even a person on the street had to walk out their door to encounter their harasser (chose to make themselves vulnerable) and even then, they have the option of walking away (chose not to subject themselves).

And blackthornone, the girl did not know the guy was not real. You have a gift for disputing irrelevant details when your central argument is flaccid.
 
Virtual or no there was a person at the other end of the keyboard telling a very influential kid nice things about herself. While I agree that she could've probably had better parenting, it's moronic of you to just blame her and her parents. What about the **** and the **** mother who thought it'd be funny to humiliate a little girl publicly?

The internet is NOT in public. In public is amongst real breathing people.
There were words posted in an artificial environment which is only accessible for those with technology and the inclination to do so.

I do not condone the behavior of the mother who wrote false things online, but the fact is that people lie, and in the absence of proof when dealing with a previously unverified source, nothing that is written can or should be taken as true.

Someone could invent an AI that randomly does this to people. The AI starts chat, gathers information from same, and begins to impersonate a real person. Then an AI could do this same thing to anyone. Only the extremely gullible would fall prey to it.

I think there have been too many safeguards erected by society to the point at which people have been deceived into believing it is normal to abandon common sense. People need to have responsibility for themselves, and make good decisions, and that starts with good judgment taught by parents.

People get passed to the next grade in school without actually getting passing grades. There are guardrails where there used to be none on trails because people have grown careless.
People are becoming more and more disconnected with nature, and are less able to relate to being able to really survive, as in in the wild.

People have forgotten how to think. It used to be, people grow up with good judgment or they get eaten by wild animals or fall off a cliff.
Now people have lost so much of their ability to use logic that they seem to have become so helpless that they need more protection, even from themselves.
I think the public school system, with it's emphasis on memorization instead of logic and ethics is largely to blame.

The fact is, that if this mother does the things she does online, it is HER problem, and only shows how messed up she is. Any person with common sense would see that, and would never be taken in by someone they had never even met in person.

This girl who hung herself did so because she lost touch with the real world so much that she could actually BELIEVE that things said online could be taken as truth without question. THAT was the girl's fundamental problem. It's sad, but I don't think the other girl's mother was responsible for that. The girl's own mother was responsible for letting her grow up so stupid or delusional, or out of touch, what have you. Perhaps irresponsible for her daughter is a better word.

The moral of the story is that people need to take parenting seriously and actualy be involved enough with raising their children so their children have good enough judgement that they would read such stuff by that mother with the healthy skepticism that should have been there.

Her parents are responsible for her lack of healthy skepticism.

There are con men and liars in this world and people need to be raised with good judgment so as not believe everything they read, especially online.

It would be different if the mother had hired someone to become involved in her physical life and spent time with her and maybe even had sex with her and THEN broken her heart. In that case, yes, the mother would bear most of the burden, along with the young man she hired. However, this was just online b.s.

Again, sad it happened, but people need to take time to raise their children right. This was a massive parenting failure. At the very least, perhaps the parents should have monitored her online activity, like having the computer in the living room. What about the: Now, remember, you shouldn't believe anything anyone says online just because they say it talk? Did THAT ever take place? Apparently not.

Sad it happened, but her parents must blame themselves because of lack of due diligence, and absent parenting. They obviously didn't know what they were doing.
 
Thank you, Lejaun and Nam.

There is absolutely zero significant difference between human interactions in person, and human interactions online. Even a person on the street had to walk out their door to encounter their harasser (chose to make themselves vulnerable) and even then, they have the option of walking away (chose not to subject themselves).

And blackthornone, the girl did not know the guy was not real. You have a gift for disputing irrelevant details when your central argument is flaccid.

Of course she didn't know the guy was not real. That is why she got taken in. Until you see someone in the flesh, they are not real. That hot 18 year old girl could be a fat 50 year old man. It might just be a computer talking to you in a chat. That happened to me once. It was scripted so well, it almost seemed like a real person, but I felt it wasn't. The answers to questions were very well thought out. It soon became absolutely clear it was an AI, but still, it proves that online messages often aren't what they seem. You never know anything until you meet someone.
 
Anyone who reads that whole thing owes the world a dollar for contributing to the encouragement of blackthornone.
The abridged version:

The internet is NOT in public. In public is amongst real breathing people.
There were words posted in an artificial environment which is only accessible for those with technology and the inclination to do so.

I do not condone the behavior of the mother who wrote false things online, but the fact is that people lie, and in the absence of proof when dealing with a previously unverified source, nothing that is written can or should be taken as true.
It wasn't done to be funny. It was done for revenge. I don't know how justified revenge was, though.
It would be different if the mother had hired someone to become involved in her physical life and spent time with her and maybe even had sex with her and THEN broken her heart. In that case, yes, the mother would bear most of the burden, along with the young man she hired. However, this was just online b.s.

Again, sad it happened, but people need to take time to raise their children right. This was a massive parenting failure. At the very least, perhaps the parents should have monitored her online activity, like having the computer in the living room. What about the: Now, remember, you shouldn't believe anything anyone says online just because they say it talk? Did THAT ever take place? Apparently not.
 
The internet is public, but I do not know what difference it would make were it not.

You can blame all human failure on parenting. Probably non-human as well. It's a complete cop out as regards attribution of blame in these situations.
 
The internet is public, but I do not know what difference it would make were it not.

You can blame all human failure on parenting. Probably non-human as well. It's a complete cop out as regards attribution of blame in these situations.

It is the parent's job to keep their children from inappropriate TV shows, movies, books, video games, and all other media. It is the parent's job to guard against inappropriate people who would talk on the phone to their children, or the internet, and to guard their children from interacting from inappropriate people and from having inappropriate friends, real or not.

It is not the job of the government, nor is it even the job of the ISP. It is a nice selling feature to have child protections for your computer, but it is STILL the parent's responsibility to look after their children. It's part of parenting. Apparently, not everyone can do it. Not everyone is qualified to be a parent.
 
I stopped reading there. Your lack of proper protein consumption has dwindled your IQ to 78 or maybe even lower. :monkey1

The internet is AVAILABLE to the public, but it is not in public. There are a lot of people who do not even use the internet. The internet doesn't carry the same credibility as a newspaper or TV. It carries even less than in person. You apparently have a strong personal investment in the internet. You, along with many others, give it more credibility than it deserves. I think it's virtually all lies unless proven to be true. Lies have no credibility to me. People can lie about whatever, and it says nothing about what or who they lie about and says everything about them. Why on Earth would you believe that ANYTHING said on the internet carries any real weight? Words on the internet are just words, and without logic or concrete proof to back them, mean nothing whatsoever, and are pure fluff.
 
Last edited:
The internet is AVAILABLE to the public, but it is not in public. There are a lot of people who do not even use the internet. The internet doesn't carry the same credibility as a newspaper or TV. It carries even less than in person.

Ignorance. Explain to me why when I buy a domain, they ask if I want my information to be public or private? In your little, itty bitty mind, that wouldn't need to be necessary because the "into-web ith not pubwic!" The reality is, it absolutely is. The very fact that we're having to read your halfwitted trolling shows that anybody and everybody has access to it. You don't even have to pay for it. Internet cafes and local libraries provide internet for free, to everybody.
 
It is the parent's job to keep their children from inappropriate TV shows, movies, books, video games, and all other media. It is the parent's job to guard against inappropriate people who would talk on the phone to their children, or the internet, and to guard their children from interacting from inappropriate people and from having inappropriate friends, real or not.

It is not the job of the government, nor is it even the job of the ISP. It is a nice selling feature to have child protections for your computer, but it is STILL the parent's responsibility to look after their children. It's part of parenting. Apparently, not everyone can do it. Not everyone is qualified to be a parent.

As usual this member wanders up the rhetorical garden path, constructs a straw man argument and dismantles it piece by piece, leaving the original assertion unattended to and neglected. So now we have a discussion about parental responsibility, where Devil's original observation was that existing laws are adequate and sufficient to address parallel behaviors occurring online.

The real contention is that this member disputes the fundamental reality that Internet behavior is not quarantined from real world events. That the Internet is not in public. One's child being online is often times no different from their being at the mall, or on the bus, or in the playground. These places are locales for social activity, and behaviors occurring in one of these places can easily, and does, bleed into other locales.

To declare that because an activity is mediated by technology rather than taking place in a physical space, then it is somehow illusory or artificial, is willfully ignorant, utterly facile and mind numbingly stupid. It is possibly the most ridiculous thing to have ever been authored by this member, and that's saying something.
 
As usual this member wanders up the rhetorical garden path, constructs a straw man argument and dismantles it piece by piece, leaving the original assertion unattended to and neglected. So now we have a discussion about parental responsibility, where Devil's original observation was that existing laws are adequate and sufficient to address parallel behaviors occurring online.

The real contention is that this member disputes the fundamental reality that Internet behavior is not quarantined from real world events. That the Internet is not in public. One's child being online is often times no different from their being at the mall, or on the bus, or in the playground. These places are locales for social activity, and behaviors occurring in one of these places can easily, and does, bleed into other locales.

To declare that because an activity is mediated by technology rather than taking place in a physical space, then it is somehow illusory or artificial, is willfully ignorant, utterly facile and mind numbingly stupid. It is possibly the most ridiculous thing to have ever been authored by this member, and that's saying something.

You believe that the internet is reality, and I do not. I believe it to be an artificial construct, unlike the real world. Because it is an artificial construct, the same rules cannot apply.
Everything is made up, and may or may not represent the real world.
Of course it is artificial.
Children can be physically abducted from the mall, the bus, or the playground. They cannot be sucked through the monitor into the home of a predator, at least not yet. It is NOT the same at all.
Your argument is invalid.
 
You believe that the internet is reality, and I do not. I believe it to be an artificial construct, unlike the real world. Because it is an artificial construct, the same rules cannot apply.
Everything is made up, and may or may not represent the real world.
Of course it is artificial.
Children can be physically abducted from the mall, the bus, or the playground. They cannot be sucked through the monitor into the home of a predator, at least not yet. It is NOT the same at all.
Your argument is invalid.

This member's blaming of the victim is a disgrace.
 
Ignorance. Explain to me why when I buy a domain, they ask if I want my information to be public or private? In your little, itty bitty mind, that wouldn't need to be necessary because the "into-web ith not pubwic!" The reality is, it absolutely is. The very fact that we're having to read your halfwitted trolling shows that anybody and everybody has access to it. You don't even have to pay for it. Internet cafes and local libraries provide internet for free, to everybody.


People are not as vulnerable online as they are in person, which is the reason why the laws should be different between online and reality.
I do pay for my internet, and someone pays for internet cafes and library access.
 
You believe that the internet is reality, and I do not. I believe it to be an artificial construct, unlike the real world. Because it is an artificial construct, the same rules cannot apply.
Everything is made up, and may or may not represent the real world.
Of course it is artificial.
Children can be physically abducted from the mall, the bus, or the playground. They cannot be sucked through the monitor into the home of a predator, at least not yet. It is NOT the same at all.
Your argument is invalid.

Let's talk about an invalid argument, yours.

Public - pub·lic [puhb-lik] adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole: public funds; a public nuisance.
2. done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole: public prosecution.
3. open to all persons: a public meeting.
4. of, pertaining to, or being in the service of a community or nation, especially as a government officer: a public official.
5. maintained at the public expense and under public control: a public library; a public road.

The definition states nothing about open air or being outside. Before you start more ignorant trolling, do yourself a favor and at least look up the word you're trolling about. It'll save you from looking like an incompetent fool time and again.
 
Back
Top