Raider5678

In response to "Just open your eyes online" I thought it was fair. And I'd pointed it out to two people directly before, that there are exceptions. So by the third time somebody said I claimed "absolutely none" I got annoyed. But in which case, I'll keep the negative rep point. And for actually being honest +1

No, you provided 4 links that supported my claim. Which isn't the way this sort of thing usually goes. Also, I'd refrain from using negative posts on somebody simply because you don't agree. Typically, it's smart to save them for those who are contributing nothing to the current conversation. But we have gotten off topic. Let's stop.

And o golly gee. Another failure at english. Here. Let me explain the term "majority". Majority, means the largest portion of something that's in question. The majority of teens not having adverse effects is what I claimed. Point to where I said "There are no adverse effects in any teens." All the studies support what I'm saying. A lot of social media is harmful. I agree. There are a lot of kids who use it too much. I agree. The majority of kids though, don't over use it so much that they are significantly hurt. I agree. So I agree with your links. You agree too since you used them. We're good here.

By figuring out the height, you can figure out the constant acceleration. Except then the depth of the earth comes into play.........

No. I am not. I made that very clear when I said "even in small doses, it is extremely hurtful to young children." And unless you're a doctor, who has researched the severe side effects to giving children alcohol, I suggest you don't claim it's harmless unless abused. You're presuming that the world is better without social media and that's alright, but it's wrong for me to presume based upon evidence that alcohol should not be legal for kids? Okay. And evidence social media is bad? I provided evidence that there are no significant effects. So unless you can prove contrary, don't say there are negative effects.

No. Because I already provided a large amount of statistical evidence showing that to be false. And then you told me you weren't arguing that point. Now you're saying you're arguing that point again.

Then you shouldn't have even bothered to counter my argument. I specifically said that the majority of teens will be fine. BUT THERE WILL BE EXCEPTIONS. So you arguing against me proved nothing. I already said that there are exceptions. So unless you were arguing that the majority of teens do not use social media in a healthy way, then you should go back and adequately read my posts. Then you'll understand better. My argument stated: As you can see, I simply claimed the majority. Not in every case. And you argued against this why? I then provided evidence that using alcohol is unhealthy for children. Which you then asked me to provide evidence for.

Gravity relates how..............

My point? You were clearly arguing that they were similar. I pointed out you were wrong, and then you claimed you were never arguing that. Then you asked me to point out where you were arguing that, and I did. Now you're asking why I pointed it out. I'll bet after this you're gonna ask "Your point?"

I provided a lot of evidence pointing to the extremely adverse effects caused by drinking before the body is fully mature. Even in small doses. You yourself admitted it was un-healthy. There is a reason there is an age limit on drinking. I don't see why you're trying to argue there isn't.

Fair enough. But the evidence is there now.

Okay then..... I guess you don't want to look it up yourself.... https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/blog/social-media-and-young-peoples-mental-health This link talks about the adverse effects of social media on today's generation. The majority of children though, do not experience these adverse effects. Therefore, the majority of children do not have a problem with social media. Do you disagree or should I start compiling a database?

We're comparing the usage of social media to the consumption of alcohol. As pointed out previously, the consumption of alcohol can have severe adverse effects on a child's mental and physical state, while social media so far hasn't shown any significant difference between either(Also stated above, look it up if you want.). So banning alcohol prevents a lot of mental and physical problems in children that has already been scientifically registered and documented. But banning social media would be attempting to fix problems that have yet to be found. If there were problems with social media, then banning it would help fix those problems. But as of yet we haven't found any problems yet. So banning it, would not have the same effect as banning alcohol. Hopefully this explains it a bit more. Uh, no. The rest of the statement, which you decided to leave out, tells you to compare the mental state of teens in modern day culture, with social media, to the mental state of teens 30 years ago without social media. I couldn't find any significant difference, and unless you can, it'd be russels tea cup argument to have me try and prove there isn't a difference that we just can't see yet.

Assuming that you can observe outward social ability to connect it to being able to healthily use social media you can easily observe most teens around you and figure that they're fine. The cognitive health ability of teenagers generally graduating from high school from today, compared to 30 years ago when there was no social media would be a good indicator if social media has a severe impact correct? I suggest you look at that and tell me what you see. Perhaps you'll find a major difference I missed. Yes. There is a lot of support evidence from the scientific community that alcohol can be extremely lethal at much smaller doses for children compared to adults. Other side effects include seizures, comas, and severe brain damage. Obviously, this is in excess. But an adult may be able to drink 20 to 30 times as much as a child before they would experience serious medical problems. So under the circumstances it is much easier to kill a child accidentally with alcohol, it's harder to do the same for an adult. http://www.poison.org/articles/2013-feb/alcohol-a-dangerous-poison-for-children This link provides more information. Now, as I pointed out before, this effect is much less by the time you're a teen. So what would kill a toddler might not kill a teen. I'm not saying alcohol is deadly to teens as much as it is to small children, but it is still deadlier to teens then it is to adults. The long term effects are also harder on teens then on adults. I think that's the evidence you wanted.

Well, looking at it from a unbiased view. Alcohol can seriously hinder and harm a child due to their body still developing, and it's very easy for it to harm their liver during development if they drink too much alcohol. While for the most part, when they're teens it won't be any where near as deadly, it's still more harmful to them then to adults. So there is an increased risk of problems, both physical and psychological for kids consuming alcohol. As for social media, the effects are dependent upon what they do on there, with minimal psychological impacts for a mentally stable teen. It also provides a way for them to remain in contact. Otherwise it'd be a web of simply texting and sending images. Unless you think texting should be banned too, because the same adverse effects can happen on there then I suggest banning social media until you reach a certain age would be a bad idea. If you did, you'd have to ban texting under the same context, or otherwise the entire point would be moot. On top of that, how do you stop kids from using social media? And what are the punishments? The majority of kids who use social media are fine. The majority of kids who use alcohol would seriously hurt their development. So the effects would not be the same. Limiting social media wouldn't be nearly as helpful as it would be detrimental.

So. Freedom of religion, but parents shouldn't be allowed to teach their children religion. Alright. Parents also shouldn't be allowed to teach their children lying is wrong, smoking is unhealthy, and that they should practice safe sex. All of those might lead to religious aspects. A good portion of kids have a healthy ratio of social media compared to their daily lives. But there's always the kids obsessed over it. But that's just gonna happen.

That's correct. But you should probably compare the acts of kindness like this to the bullying.

I mentioned this before, but just to hammer this point in: Again and again. Year after year. One kid after another, this happens. And I see it year after year, again and again. Screw social interaction skills. Not having to pay to educate the workforce saves them money. And not having to pay more to someone because all they needed was a high school diploma rather then a college degree saves them money too. So yes. +1

Definitely the last one. Those hip problems will get you if you're not careful man......

Thank you. Just hit that little green arrow next to my post and it'll mean 10x more.

https://www.edchoice.org/school_choice_faqs/how-does-school-choice-work-in-other-countries/ Social interaction skills can be learned even with minimal contact with fellow peers. Even going to youth group once a week does it. Unless you mean you want them to also experience the stress of bullying, self image, and trying to be popular. In which case no, I refuse to bully them, make them question their self image, and have them try to be like everyone else.

Assuming that the tunnel is straight through the earth, and that both sides of the earth would be at the same level above sea level, and that it was all solid glass(picking a smooth near friction-less element.) Rolling a ball into it would be equivalent as rolling it down a hole with a hill at the other end. The effect of gravity acting on the ball would change, and would even itself out going both up and down. So if I derive an equation from the conservation of energy(you said no friction, so I can do this without altering the problem) then this problem becomes elementary. The equation I got was: Edit: How the heck do you attach images??????? Edit 2: I'm now testing ways to insert equations. Do not quote this post. \[\large gh_1+(v_1^2)/2=gh_2+ (v_2^2)/2\] Edit 3: \[\large gh_1+(v_1^2)/2=gh_2+ (v_2^2)/2\] Edit 4: [latex] \[gh_1+(v_1^2)/2=gh_2+ (v_2^2)/2\] [/latex] Edit 5: [latex] \[gh_1+(v_1^2)/2=gh_2+ (v_2^2)/2\] [/latex] Edit 6: \[gh_1+(v_1^2)/2=gh_2+ (v_2^2)/2\] Edit 7: [latex][gh_1+(v_1^2)/2=gh_2+ (v_2^2)/2\] [/latex] Edit 8: You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community. Edit 9: You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community. What is the point of having the ability to imbed urls into images to put them in a post, if you're not allowed to do it ....... Edit 10: <img src="http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?gh_1&plus;(v_1^2)/2=gh_2&plus;&space;(v_2^2)/2"title="gh_1+(v_1^2)/2=gh_2+ (v_2^2)/2" /> CLOSE ENOUGH DAMN IT Edit 11: http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?gh_1&plus;(v_1^2)/2=gh_2&plus;&space;(v_2^2)/2 Edit 12: You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community. Edit 13: http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?gh_1&plus;(v_1^2)/2=gh_2&plus;&space;(v_2^2)/2 Edit 14: You are not allowed to use that image extension on this community. I give up with this thread, on account of it being impossible to add images. The site doesn't trust me enough to add image extensions. Edit 15: [latex] g' = g\frac{a}{R} [/latex] You've got to be kidding me............. Edit 16: [latex] \[gh_1+(v_1^2)/2=gh_2+ (v_2^2)/2\] [/latex] Edit 17: [latex] gh_1+(v_1^2)/2=gh_2+ (v_2^2)/2\ [/latex] Almost.......... Edit 18: [latex] gh_1+(v_1^2)/2=gh_2+ (v_2^2)/2\ [/latex] YESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YES YES YES!!!!!!! Now, taking that equation, we can calculate the velocity when it reaches the center of the earth. It's velocity would be 0 when it reaches the other side. Considering there's no friction. I'm not doing this tonight.