Cyberbullying VS Light-Hearted Prank (1 Viewer)

[Dick7Access]

Please see my following response to Dick.[/QUOTE]


Your responce to me is not showing up on my puter, did you forget to sent it.

 

[Adam Caramon]

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.

Agreed. Negligent because the company broke a law. But you've assumed my example was of a business. If you're allergic to peanuts and I invite your family over to my home for a dinner, who's at fault if you consume peanuts?

Your expectation that everyone always be polite and courteous to everyone they interact with at all times is simply not realistic.

Your responce to me is not showing up on my puter, did you forget to sent it.

He's probably still typing it. Hold your horses, Dick.

 

[dan-cat]

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

...and here we come down to the nub. This will probably be my last contribution to this thread as I'm just repeating myself.

You see the thing is, is that if you continue to insist on having freedom at any cost you're not going to have any lines left to draw.

Yeah sure you can prank but you roll the dice. If you lose, the law makes you shoulder your part of the burden. As with a prank call, stepping up to that line is not voluntary and thus, despite arguments to the contrary, we are protected from a society that has had all its lines eroded for the sake of the freedom to behave badly.

Ironically you're being protected from yourself.

 

[Dick7Access]

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

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/12/14/woman-cited-for-shopping-cart-rage-outside-walmart/
Woman Cited For Shopping Cart Rage Outside Walmart

 

[Dick7Access]

...and here we come down to the nub. This will probably be my last contribution to this thread as I'm just repeating myself.

You see the thing is, is that if you continue to insist on having freedom at any cost you're not going to have any lines left to draw.

Yeah sure you can prank but you roll the dice. If you lose, the law makes you shoulder your part of the burden. As with a prank call, stepping up to that line is not voluntary and thus, despite arguments to the contrary, we are protected from a society that has had all its lines eroded for the sake of the freedom to behave badly.

Ironically you're being protected from yourself.

I agree where are the lines. They seem to me to be very right or very left. Sucks. For the most parts I am against pranks, but I am not ready to gastigate others, but pay they will. If there are any spellling mistake I am too tired to check them

 

[dan-cat]

Agreed. Negligent because the company broke a law. But you've assumed my example was of a business. If you're allergic to peanuts and I invite your family over to my home for a dinner, who's at fault if you consume peanuts?

Adam you are so clutching at straws here. You ignored all my other responses and are trying desperately to side-step this one. If you go to a party and eat peanuts ... well that is voluntary. If the host decides a prank is in order and announces there's no peanuts in the dip for an entertaining round of spot the allergen sufferer then that is negligence.

Your expectation that everyone always be polite and courteous to everyone they interact with at all times is simply not realistic.

Why would I be lauding a law that addresses negligence if this statement had an iota of truth in it.

He's probably still typing it. Hold your horses, Dick.

It's getting late, I've just stabled the nag.

 

[Dick7Access]

Ironically you're being protected from yourself.[/QUOTE]

You can not trust something just becasue it's on internet, but I just read that pinky fell down and can't get up

 

[dan-cat]

I agree where are the lines. They seem to me to be very right or very left. Sucks.

You don't have to worry about it. The law draws them for you.

 

[Dick7Access]

You don't have to worry about it. The law draws them for you.

That’s true but that is the part that sucks. Is it a stores reasonability to make sure people don’t trip on stuff. Sure is! Kid is running around the store mother trips over her own kid. Law says mother gets big bucks. Sucks

 

[Adam Caramon]

Adam you are so clutching at straws here. You ignored all my other responses and are trying desperately to side-step this one. If you go to a party and eat peanuts ... well that is voluntary.

I'm not clutching or side-stepping. You're absolutely right that there is a difference between voluntarily signing up for something or having it sprung on you. You asked me for specific examples as far as how someone can take responsibility for their own conditions/ailments, and I was providing those.

If the host decides a prank is in order and announces there's no peanuts in the dip for an entertaining round of spot the allergen sufferer then that is negligence.

But here's the crux: Your analogy makes the assumption that the pranker knows that the target of the prank is allergic to peanuts.

So if we apply that to the real situation, you're saying that the DJs should have known that their prank would cause a woman to commit suicide.

That's where we disagree.

 

[Dick7Access]

Bonsoir
Gute Nacht
Buonanotte
Buenas noches

 

[dan-cat]

I'm not clutching or side-stepping. You're absolutely right that there is a difference between voluntarily signing up for something or having it sprung on you. You asked me for specific examples as far as how someone can take responsibility for their own conditions/ailments, and I was providing those.

and I've shown you how they are inadequate in dismissing negligence.

But here's the crux: Your analogy makes the assumption that the pranker knows that the target of the prank is allergic to peanuts.

So if we apply that to the real situation, you're saying that the DJs should have known that their prank would cause a woman to commit suicide.

No, precisely the opposite. The application to the real situation is, is that you don't know whether there is a peanut allergy sufferer at the party and you don't know the true hazards of the allergy. They thought they were going to be hung up on but they weren't. This is what made it broadcasting gold. That's where the excitement of the prank comes in. The unpredictability of the reaction.

You roll the dice and hope for comedy, the price is negligence.

That's where we disagree.

We disagree on whether pranking should be a risk-free practice on the part of the pranker. Whether they should be allowed to take free gambles on other people's lives.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Adam said

If you're allergic to peanuts and I invite your family over to my home for a dinner, who's at fault if you consume peanuts?

?

The correct answer is you of course, a polite host would ask about allergies as well as likes and dislikes. Peanuts being a well known allergy that can affect people just in their vicinity would be a no no if anybody was allergic.

Of course I wouldn't expect Adam to care, such people should stay at home.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

Adam's analogies bear no relationship to the event in question, or did he expect the lady to ask if it was a prank as she was feeling depressed / emotional or whatever and would therefore commit suicide.
It was a cold call to somebody they knew nothing about. In the final analysis she would not have died if they had not called, from the state of them in the TV interview they know this and will have to live with it, Adam would have no such conscience.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

The correct answer is you of course, a polite host would ask about allergies as well as likes and dislikes. Peanuts being a well known allergy that can affect people just in their vicinity would be a no no if anybody was allergic.

Your answer over shadows anything I've said. I suspect you are a true gentleman.

 

[dan-cat]

In the final analysis she would not have died if they had not called, from the state of them in the TV interview they know this and will have to live with it

Reading Oliver Twist at the moment, this part leaped out of the page at me the other day.

“We need be careful how we deal with those about us, when every death carries to some small circle of survivors, thoughts of so much omitted, and so little done- of so many things forgotten, and so many more which might have been repaired! There is no remorse so deep as that which is unavailing; if we would be spared its tortures, let us remember this, in time.”

 

[Thales750]

Your expectation that everyone always be polite and courteous to everyone they interact with at all times is simply not realistic.

Noticeably absent in most of this, especially from the “rights at all cost” bunch; morality.

This whole incident stands to illustrate how far down our societies have fallen. Sad when a discussion about abhorrent behavior being encouraged by the masses, and mental illness causing the death of a young woman, would center around the legalities.

Is that where we are?

The energy of the Universe, call it the power of God, if you like, flows in vectors. Small changes now have a greater affect later own. We should all treat life from a position of a moral code and love of everything alive, not simply because it is in compliance with one law or another.

By the way Adam, it was highly unrealistic that Columbus would have convinced Isabella to provide the means to discover the Americas, and when the President said in this decade we will put a man on the moon, also equally unrealistic.


And when a homeless person went around speaking of peace and love of your fellow man; that 2000 years later, billions of people would hear those words and respond with love for all mankind.

Unrealistic, is that we would expect things to get better, when all we do is continue to try to make them worse.

 

[nanscombe]

Mental illness causing the death of a young woman?

Did I miss the result of the coroners' inquest ... oh no, that's not until next March.

Abhorrent behavior being encouraged by the masses?

Too true we shouldn't encourage lynch mobs to act without knowing all the facts.

(And yes, I know that's probably not what you meant)

 

[Adam Caramon]

No, precisely the opposite. The application to the real situation is, is that you don't know whether there is a peanut allergy sufferer at the party and you don't know the true hazards of the allergy. They thought they were going to be hung up on but they weren't. This is what made it broadcasting gold. That's where the excitement of the prank comes in. The unpredictability of the reaction.

Now who's side-stepping? Here's exactly what you said:

If the host decides a prank is in order and announces there's no peanuts in the dip for an entertaining round of spot the allergen sufferer then that is negligence.

If you choose to play "spot the allergen sufferer", then you're making an intentional act to try to inflict harm.

You're right about one thing. The DJs didn't know that the nurse would commit suicide. They were not playing "spot the mentally distressed person".

We disagree on whether pranking should be a risk-free practice on the part of the pranker. Whether they should be allowed to take free gambles on other people's lives.

You're arguing from the point of view that it is reasonable to assume that a person would commit suicide if they were the target of a prank. That's the disagreement. It is not reasonable

 

[Rabbie]

You're arguing from the point of view that it is reasonable to assume that a person would commit suicide if they were the target of a prank. That's the disagreement. It is not reasonable

It is not unheard of for the victims of bullying to commit suicide. One person's prank can be another person's bullying. A lot can depend on the victim's mental state - something in this case the perpetrators could know nothing about.