Assume Nothing

Banned for being a crick in one's neck.

Banned in jest to perpetuate the cycle.

I think you've used the wrong thread, Dizzle.

Banned for being a habitual forumer.

Banned for failing to deduce that my timezone would be GMT+0 if the referred post was posted at 5:30am, and that I live in England.

tripsis has dreams about RuneScape. Okay, noted.

I don't see how faith is a relevant issue unless we're arguing about theists themselves as opposed to religion. I go by the dictionary definitions of faith - to believe something unconditionally - i.e. without true critical analysis. No argument, reason or evidence would ever convince a person of faith that their beliefs may not be true (do note the terminology). I don't like false hope and reassurance - is it not better to grieve and finish grieving about the death of a loved one, than to falsely believe that it's all part of some malevolent plan that involves a myriad of suffering, torture and death for the majority to save a tiny, tiny minority? I don't like the idea that we should use religion to fill in the blanks that science currently has, either - I see it as a curiosity stopper. If we say 'God done it', and leave it unquestioned - when can we ever get the answer? Even in moderate Christianity, questioning God is considered a generally negative thing, correct? If so, that's your curiosity stopper. It's pseudoscience at best, and essentially a mind-numbing virus at worst. It doesn't make the world look like a good place knowing the figures of those who are religious.

Banned for not waking up early to write brief posts to only fall asleep again at 11am.

The quality of 'stepford-ness'. Why so docile, subservient... accepting of authority? You should realise that you don't have to acquiesce to their demands when you've reached the age of maturity.

Banned for scapegoating, and exhibiting a lack of keyboarding prowess.

That was a legitimate mistake. It should have been 'moot', not redundant, as per the edit. The likelihood that the circumstances would have justified the action of shooting the laptop is so minute that it's negligible. I state that it's irrational on the premise that it lacks justification - the costs of shooting it outweighs the benefits that it potentially has. Nor was it likely to be very effective in teaching a lesson - which you've proclaimed in your previous posts as a premise of justifying the action (I've addressed why in an earlier post, I'm not repeating it for you). Indeed, I can explain myself. The problem is that you're putting words into my mouth half the time with the plethora of assumptions being made.

I'm growing impatient of the haranguing on TIF. I don't get a chance to explain my rationale because the clique of TIF decides to flood me with messages instead of allowing me to talk. Good job.

"Perhaps consider taking your own advice instead of trying hard to be an intellectual." ~ Kimberly If you even took a few moments to read my posts, you'd realise that I have never expressed any intent to be perceived as to be an intellectual. That's completely irrelevant to this argument anyway, so your point is moot. "If you agree it's dependent on the situation then you have no idea what will be rational at the time and what won't." We know the situation - we don't know the circumstances surrounding it. I'm not sure how you're defining rationality either, care to elaborate? I don't see how people would have 'no idea what will be rational at the time and what won't'. You do realise that you have no moral supremacy because you don't agree with my ideals, right? Your recent posts have come across as nothing more than bitter arrogance, quick on assuming before allowing others to explain. Good job.

It's called an exception. Look it up some time.

I know what I won't do because I know it's irrational. I don't know what I would do because I don't know if there's a superior alternative to what I could come up with. The objective is to find the best method - it should be self-evident honestly. Instead of assuming, perhaps ask for clarification. It helps.

I don't think there exists anything too controversial to be said. It's simply the means of expressing it that gets you into trouble. But then again, some hypersensitive people might be so arrogant and out-of-touch with reality that they would get offended by even a reference to something frivolous (a child of Muslim descent who made a complaint about a teacher that made a reference to 'ham', because it contained pork.) I've never understood the term 'offensive' - surely offense is taken, not given - unless with intent.

I don't mean that I would research it after the action had occurred. I'm saying that I'd research it later today in foresight of it occurring with my own family. I currently don't know what I'd do - that shouldn't be too difficult to grasp. Don't even try to pose the hypothetical, because I don't have a family of my own right now for that to happen, so the likelihood of it would be zero. EDIT - That's because the laptop is not the crux of the problem. It doesn't matter which device they will use - so long as they have the motive, they shall do it on whatever device they can get a hold of. It would be meaninglessly impractical to withdraw all access to all devices everywhere, without severely breaching the freedom rights. The way to solve an issue is to locate its source and extinguish it. To do otherwise would only be addressing symptoms - not the problem in itself.

I wouldn't. I would research what I should do, and base what I would do on that.

I don't think more than 5 showers is necessary in a given week, but it honestly depends on the other hygiene habits in general. If you sweat a lot when you sleep, then there may be an issue.

I wouldn't touch the laptop at all. I'm not sure what I would have done, but I know what I wouldn't have done. It's one of the difficulties in good parenting. I shall research it later.

It's sufficient, but unnecessary. For the sake of argument - maybe you're right, it may have worked for that specific incident. Does that justify it? It doesn't, because the most likely outcome doesn't suggest that the girl would learn from it. It's merely a form of retribution. Good parenting entails providing the correct incentive to behave, and to develop an understanding of the implications of misbehaving or disobedience. A punishment, such as grounding, is likely to be ineffective after a certain age because they start developing critical thinking skills to question authority. I don't support the use of guns on laptops for the same reason I don't support corporal punishment - it's unlikely to be effective, and if it is effective, it's effective for all the wrong reasons (fear, anguish, etc.) It's pretty universally accepted that growing up in a loving, nurturing family would improve their life chances - why can't the parents in this scenario be less emotional, and act on reason? What benefit does shooting a computer do, beyond making an unnecessary point that did not necessitate the use of a firearm on a laptop? It unfairly compromises any of the work she may have had on the computer too. What's worse is the parents having the audacity to upload it onto YouTube. They may have received unnecessary media attention that does little but distract them from their true objective - to teach the girl a lesson. Parents ought to learn from this - shooting laptops because your child ranted on Facebook isn't exactly a wise decision.

Umm.... Wut? Do note the precise terminology. He's right - you don't need to shower everyday. You may want to, in order to maintain cleanliness to a greater standard, though.

Banned for being so vulnerable when you're asleep.

I don't believe that disciplinary action works beyond the age of 13. What incentive does the girl have to behave in an acceptable way, beyond avoiding punishment (which isn't really an incentive)?

Banned for not clarifying whether that's a moral ought or a rational ought.