Dale can charge me with whatever logical fallacy or literary technique he sees fit,
'tis the logic, or lack thereof, behind the argument that creates the charges, not me. I'm just the one pointing 'em out. I never created the strawman,
reductio ad absurdum, begging the question, et al.
but arguing that some kids already behave badly because they are exposed to it in other places so why should we have to change is akin to saying that everybody else cuts down rainforest trees so why should we have to stop? Or everybody else runs stops signs, crosses the street without looking, pushes the elderly down...so why should we stop?
First off, I've NEVER in this thread have made such an assertion. If you believe I have, I'd like for you to cite it for me.
You
may have me confused with my apparent partner in the <ahem> traveling thread show, as it were.
What I did claim was as Nova C claimed: I can't believe that the use of profanity, masked or not, in a forum such as this
encourages others to do the same, irrespective of age. Brent may have cited the example of "modeling", but I don't see that it applies to an internet forum. The behaviors are learned interpersonally, via family and/or peers.
If I were to lose my cool and called someone "UNDERWEAR!!!", I doubt that would incite a 15 year old about to post photos of his snakes first shed to up the ante and flame me with......."
DIRTY UNDERWEAR!!!!"
And running stop signs, crossing the street without looking, and elder abuse are, once again, beautiful examples of the strawman argument. The parallels between those and your contention is, at best, tenuous.
That said, I have NO disagreement with your belief that judicious self-control is in order when posting to - or creating - threads that can run akilter (is that a word? :shrugs
and become a DVD set that's advertised on late night television.
BTW, LOVE the avatar. As Dr. Phil would ask, how's that working out for you?
regards,
jazz