Cyberbullying VS Light-Hearted Prank (1 Viewer)

[Dick7Access]

I wrote a long reply that I just lost because the forum wouldn't post it. Figures. lol

did you save it some place so that you can try again latter

 

[Rabbie]

We need to remember that she was an immigrant and came from a different cultural background. It may well be that she felt she had let herself down and let the hospital down by putting the call through. Seemingly she left a note for her family and this may be published after the inquest. Then we will know more.

The DJs IMO were guilty of nothing more than a thoughtless, infantile prank and I am sure are already suffering more than any punishment that could be enforced.

 

[Vassago]

We need to remember that she was an immigrant and came from a different cultural background. It may well be that she felt she had let herself down and let the hospital down by putting the call through. Seemingly she left a note for her family and this may be published after the inquest. Then we will know more.

The DJs IMO were guilty of nothing more than a thoughtless, infantile prank and I am sure are already suffering more than any punishment that could be enforced.

Well said. Perhaps it was a cultural difference rather than disturbance she already carried. That is a good point.

As far as the djs suffering, I agree. They've lost a lot over this. They will carry it with them for the rest of their life.

 

[nanscombe]

Some people complain that people today are developing a tendency to say "It's not my fault" and shift the blame.

That doesn't sound such a bad thing, if it keeps you alive.

If only the nurse had been able to think...

I may have put them through but they shouldn't have phoned in the first place.

 

[RainLover]

As our emotions die down, we are all thinking a lot more clearly on this.

People are becoming more realistic about the whole situation.

In time we may find out the real story.

 

[Thales750]

Yes, nobody has come up and said they have never pulled a prank on someone, so I have to assume everybody has. That would probably be the norm. That being the case then any of our pranks could have gone wrong. If nobody had died we probably would not even heard about it. Those that reverence the royal family would probably have still be offended, but not much would have happened. The rest would have thought it was pretty funny. Mental health is indeed a terrible thing, but to blame a death on a prank is pushing it some.

I have never "pulled a prank" I always considered pranks a thin veil; shadowing a deep seated desire to perform evil deeds, and then laugh about it.

 

[Thales750]

Yes and I was quickly taught the error of my ways by nearly being choked out.

I was forced to accept both the responsibility of my own actions and the emotional cost to the recipient of the prank. I believe that choke hold made me a better person.

Now, that is funny!

 

[Thales750]

So a person over the age of 19 cannot be vulnerable, I never knew that.

Brian

Brian,
I have had the joy and honor of reading your words for years. It is a pleasure to have you with us sir.

 

[Thales750]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

#5.

Next?

You're a young man, there is still hope.

 

[Dick7Access]

I have never "pulled a prank" I always considered pranks a thin veil; shadowing a deep seated desire to perform evil deeds, and then laugh about it.

First of let me say I love you neck of the woods. Had meetings in Dickerson, TX and in our free time ate in Galveston, and went across the ferry with the pickup.
Secondly congratulation on never commented a prank. You must have had a very good up bring. I wish I could say the same. Your evaluation is correct, and that I why it is called a childish prank.

 

[Thales750]

I try to always debate/discuss in good faith. In my experience, you do the same. We rarely see eye to eye, but it has always been cordial. You are capable of articulating your points well and understanding mine.

For others, it may be that they don't have the true desire to debate a point, but just want to have their say. That's fine as well, but it is hard to take that seriously.

Whenever a person of Brian's charactor repremends you,you should take note.

 

[Thales750]

First of let me say I love you neck of the woods. Had meetings in Dickerson, TX and in our free time ate in Galveston, and went across the ferry with the pickup.
Secondly congratulation on never commented a prank. You must have had a very good up bring. I wish I could say the same. Your evaluation is correct, and that I why it is called a childish prank.

I live on a 35 foot Pearson.

And thanks, yes this life style on the Texas Gulf Coast is real layed back.

 

[dan-cat]

Limited resources, prioritisation of care to sick might be an appropriate justification for anger if this were an underfunded, undermanned, overstretched NHS hospital but it wasn't.

There is a fundamental principle you are missing here.

The DJ's have admitted that they thought their call would be one in a hundred of such calls and used such rationale to justify their actions. What the hospital was, what time of day it was and whether the switchboard was manned by the FBI is immaterial.

These people thought that bombarding a hospital with prank calls was adequate justification for them to do it. They simply did not put in the thought process to think about the points you are raising with the benefit of hindsight. It's a knee-jerk reaction based on hindsight to attempt to cover up the negligence of the action.

 

[dan-cat]

My thought is that, where possible, it is each person's duty to know their conditions or ailments that make them less capable than the average person, and take steps to protect themselves.

I'd love to hear some examples.

Bubble-wrapped cars?

A valium before every unsolicited call?

This doesn't grant free license to others to pick on such people, or to exploit their vulnerabilities. It does however put the burden on the person that is less capable in accidental situations.

You're impeding the lives of the less fortunate so the negligent can be negligent.

Why is it so important that there are no consequences for negligence?

How about the less fortunate carry the heavier burdens they already have and the negligent take responsibility for their negligence?

 

[Dick7Access]

I'd love to hear some examples.

Bubble-wrapped cars?

A valium before every unsolicited call?



You're impeding the lives of the less fortunate so the negligent can be negligent.

Why is it so important that there are no consequences for negligence?

How about the less fortunate carry the heavier burdens they already have and the negligent take responsibility for their negligence?

Praise God, the doctor took an x-ray and said I could remove the sling. I can now go back to making mistakes with both hands. The funny thing that accrued to me was the ‘less fortunate carry the heavier burdens”. I told friends and families no visiting. What a silly custom! Why should I entertain when I am sick? (less fortunate), Some didn’t visit me when I was well.

 

[Adam Caramon]

I'd love to hear some examples.

Sure. If a person bruises easily and that could threaten their life, it is their responsibility not to join a team or participate in a game where physical contact is a requirement.

If a person is allergic to peanuts, it is their responsibility to make sure they don't consume peanuts.

You're impeding the lives of the less fortunate so the negligent can be negligent.

Anytime a person works in a job that has contact with the general public, they are automatically assuming the responsibility for the occasional odd or weird interaction. If they cannot handle that, then they should not work in that job.

Why is it so important that there are no consequences for negligence?

What you're calling negligence others would call free speech. Do we really want to arrest people for prank calls?

 

[Dick7Access]

Sure. If a person bruises easily and that could threaten their life, it is their responsibility not to join a team or participate in a game where physical contact is a requirement.

If a person is allergic to peanuts, it is their responsibility to make sure they don't consume peanuts

Anytime a person works in a job that has contact with the general public, they are automatically assuming the responsibility for the occasional odd or weird interaction. If they cannot handle that, then they should not work in that job.


What you're calling negligence others would call free speech. Do we really want to arrest people for prank calls?

Adam I am on your side, but even you and I would draw the line somewhere. Much easier in hindsight, than in foresight!

 

[Thales750]

Sure. If a person bruises easily and that could threaten their life, it is their responsibility not to join a team or participate in a game where physical contact is a requirement.

If a person is allergic to peanuts, it is their responsibility to make sure they don't consume peanuts.



Anytime a person works in a job that has contact with the general public, they are automatically assuming the responsibility for the occasional odd or weird interaction. If they cannot handle that, then they should not work in that job.

Arrogance is a funny sword, you never know when it is going to take a little sting out of your salt.

I always love it when people that have been given so much; think they earned it all.

 

[Dick7Access]

Arrogance is a funny sword, you never know when it is going to take a little sting out of your salt.

I always love it when people that have been given so much; think they earned it all.

I am glad I won't get what I have earned!

 

[dan-cat]

Sure. If a person bruises easily and that could threaten their life, it is their responsibility not to join a team or participate in a game where physical contact is a requirement.

Participation in a physical contact sport is voluntary unlike prank calls

If a person is allergic to peanuts, it is their responsibility to make sure they don't consume peanuts.

By law, peanuts must be contained in the list of ingredients. To not warn of a well-known potential hazard of your product would be...wait for it... negligent.

Anytime a person works in a job that has contact with the general public, they are automatically assuming the responsibility for the occasional odd or weird interaction. If they cannot handle that, then they should not work in that job.

You've just put 99% of Wal-mart door greeters out of a job. Merry Christmas.

What you're calling negligence others would call free speech. Do we really want to arrest people for prank calls?

Please see my following response to Dick.