Different Media Takes on Pew "Sexting" Study

[A Tripolation]

This serves only as further evidence of the validity of the point presented by me in post #15 made this thread.

 

It's a darwin fish... with a santa hat.

 

Wow, you're mean.

[john5746]

So, you suggest burning the children, too?

 

Yes, the imaginary fire just doesn't work anymore.

[jake.com]

Well, whatever the real statistics are, I think we can all agree that the best thing to do is treat it as the gravest threat imaginable. Lock up your children, write to your congressman, burn down some Verizon stores. Because really, won't somebody please think of the children?

 

it's not like it's the worst thing ever. so what, everyone gets to see your daughter's nude pics. its her own fault, and it not like anyone is really gonna care.

[Moontanman]

to hear the media everyone who see someone nude goes blind the person who is nude dies tragically. has to be 100% true cause and effect.

[jake.com]

to hear the media everyone who see someone nude goes blind the person who is nude dies tragically. has to be 100% true cause and effect.

 

lol.

[Severian]

Now let's hope it's more effective than teaching abstinence.

 

 

What's wrong with teaching abstinence?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think the problem lies in teaching abstinence and nothing else, which, if I recall correctly, has been shown to be ineffective and potentially harmful (because they learn nothing of birth control and sexually transmitted diseases).

 

Abstinence by itself is not the problem. But teaching abstinence by itself is.

[mooeypoo]

What's wrong with teaching abstinence?

The validity (or lack thereof) of abstinence-only programs.

 

It was supposed to be a cynical jab comparing abstinence-only (noneffective) to "abstaining-from-having-a-phone" only...

 

Hence, I doubt the act of preventing your kid from having access to phones is at all helpful, than talking about the problem and educating kids to be more cautious.

[Moontanman]

What's wrong with teaching abstinence?

 

hmmmm, they have a name for parents who only teach abstinence, lets see what was that again? it's what Sarah Palin and her Hubby is... Oh yeah, Grandparents!

[Severian]

Hence, I doubt the act of preventing your kid from having access to phones is at all helpful

 

So let me get this straight. You think my daughter not having a mobile phone will not prevent her from getting sent inappropriate pictures on her mobile?

 

And on the other issue, I never said one should teach only abstinence. The funny thing about so many so-called (read self-declared) liberals, is that they are only tolerant of opinions that fit with their preconceptions of liberalism. Not very liberal...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So let me get this straight. You think my daughter not having a mobile phone will not prevent her from getting sent inappropriate pictures on her mobile?

 

The issue is that you cannot protect your daughter forever. In my view, it's better to teach children to deal with "the real world" than to protect them from its evilness.

 

On the other hand, I did not have a cell phone until my junior year of high school (that would be age 16 or so), and I didn't suffer much at all. I also think the idea of elementary-school children having cell phones is plain dumb. So perhaps I'm on your side a little...

[mooeypoo]

So let me get this straight. You think my daughter not having a mobile phone will not prevent her from getting sent inappropriate pictures on her mobile?

It won't prevent her from getting inappropriate pictures *in general*, Severian, indeed so. We have the internet at home and in schools, nowadays, and there are so many places where kids and teens can be exposed to inappropriate materials is enormous.

 

Television is a great example, by the way. Today's shows that are supposedly meant for youth are pretty horrific, in my judgment.

 

But my point is that kids are exposed from a LOT of fronts these days, and taking away one element isn't going to be what is stopping them from being exposed. However, education - to know how to deal and handle "inappropriate material" and teach self confidence and pride in oneself so they won't *WANT* to participate in those things, sounds ot me to be much more effective.

 

I personally think parents in our day and age are removing responsibility from themselves and onto the media, be it phones or television or computer games. If you *EDUCATE* your children to know how to handle the world, be respectful and avoid getting themselves into trouble, tehy will grow up to be responsible adults, and watching an "inappropriate photo" will not break their fragile little minds.

 

And on the other issue, I never said one should teach only abstinence. The funny thing about so many so-called (read self-declared) liberals, is that they are only tolerant of opinions that fit with their preconceptions of liberalism. Not very liberal...

Yes, and you keep jumping to conclusions and having something stuck at some orifice. Good god, Severian, I was *KIDDING*. Joking. Tongue-in-cheek remark I actually thought you'd laugh at.. ha-ha inaccurate "jab" at ya. We do it a lot in the forum, but it seems you just jump to conclusions.

 

And what the hell does anything have to do with liberals!? You seem to jump to the conclusion that since I'm a liberal in a specific subject I'm a liberal in everything, and that everything I say stem out of my LIBERAL approach. I'm not liberal about everything.

 

((BTW, The folks who used to read what I had to say about politics will probably strongly disagree with the idea that I'm a liberal))

 

When you just throw out this "thing about liberals" statements you seem to enjoy making, you're flattening my views into this black-and-white static flat view *YOU* define. Thank you, but I'm well rounded, I have other views that aren't necessaarily liberal and I would appreciate if you stop using that as a social curse every time you think anyone in the forum that *HAS* remotely liberal views as "you're all the same, I know this tactic" claim.

 

I don't tactic, I debate. I'm not a group representative, I'm a person.

 

 

I would very much appreciate it if you stop grouping me into groups that I don't necessarily belong to. I give you that courtesy by not assuming what hypothetical GROUP you might belong to, and not refering to such group when I answer your claims, I would appreciate getting it from you, too.

 

 

And not everything I say is meant to hurt you, Severian. Lighten up, it was a joke.

 

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

So let me get this straight. You think my daughter not having a mobile phone will not prevent her from getting sent inappropriate pictures on her mobile?

 

And on the other issue, I never said one should teach only abstinence. The funny thing about so many so-called (read self-declared) liberals, is that they are only tolerant of opinions that fit with their preconceptions of liberalism. Not very liberal...

 

I have to say that several of the above posts bugged me as well. Children exist in a WIDE variety of ages and maturity levels, and immediate exposure at the entertainer's whim is not a logical course of action. But that's exactly what's supported when we ridicule parental efforts like controlling media exposure.

 

I have this conversation frequently with my game development students, and being ardent video gamers they invariably enter the discussion from a position of derision and ridicule for parents. I ask them "so if a parent wants to restrict exposure to a rated R movie to their 16 year old, you think this is overcontrolling", and of course they say "yes!!!!". Then I say "what about their 7 year old?" Silence fills the room, because they've completely forgotten that children come in all ages and maturity levels, and suddenly we have the beginnings of a learning experience.

 

Progressives attack parents indirectly like this because they do understand that parenting is important, but they loathe those aspects of parenting that feel conservative and traditional and don't feel sufficiently skeptical and challenging. But this behavior is bad for society because it undermines the ability of parents to do their jobs effectively.

[iNow]

But it is the effectiveness of that parenting which quote unquote liberals and quote unquote progressives are challenging, and their challenges are directly reinforced by the psychological literature, and are further supported by the science of child and human development.

[mooeypoo]

Progressives attack parents indirectly like this because they do understand that parenting is important, but they loathe those aspects of parenting that feel conservative and traditional and don't feel sufficiently skeptical and challenging. But this behavior is bad for society because it undermines the ability of parents to do their jobs effectively.

But there is quite a substantial proof that preventing teens access doesn't quite help - which is what the "abstinence only" remarks were meant to raise.

The issue is twofold: The gaming and television industries are irresponsible, in my view. The shows we have on TV nowadays are *harmful* to kids (hell, some of them are harmful to adults) and some are just idiotic and inappropriate. Same goes with video games and cellphone use.

 

Personally, I don't think there's any need for children to have cellphones until they are long enough away from home to warrant that, and I do believe parents should impose limitations on their children when using cellphones, watching television and playing computer games. That's their jobs - to worry about their child's welfare - psychological as well as physical.

 

But when we ignore a problem, we tend to ignore the fact that are children, whether we want it or not, are exposed to them *anyways*. My point is that if you tell your child to avoid something that he's exposed to regardless, you don't really equip him or her to *deal* with it.

 

There's nothing inherently harmful in a television show, a computer game or a cellphone - there is potential harm in the way they're used. If the parent is involved in the child's life, explains the harms as well as imposes some limitations while knowing that the kid will encounter some of those anyways with his friends, at school etc, then that is much better than just saying "don't use it!".

 

Same goes with the internet. There's a LOT of potential harm in the internet - some of it outright dangerous. And yet, unless you lock up your kid in a basement, you really can't avoid their exposure to it. If they learn from a young age how to be careful online, to be open with their parents and you put some basic limitation on what they're doing online (for instance, limit their access to sex sites), then when they are OUT of your supervision (at school, with friends that don't have limitations on their internet access, etc) they are *still* careful.

 

This isn't a one-sided blame and it can't be a one-sided solution. We can't control the media, they do what they do for money. We can, however, control ourselves as parents. Children learn from their parents too, and if we take the time to explain to kids why things can be harmful they're more likely to grow up to be responsible adults *regardless* of the efforts the world around them imposes in convincing them otherwise.

 

And in any case, both "progressives" and "liberals" are exposed to these, and as much as we try to bunch people up to these two lovely comfortably "shallow" groups, reality is that people are usually in between, and to state that a choice on how to deal with this harm makes you one of those two is quite a flat view of the world.

 

~moo

[Sisyphus]

So it's a choice between teaching your children as little as possible in order to protect them, and teaching them as much as possible so they can protect themselves. It may be that leaning towards the latter is "liberal," but I'd rather just think of it as "good parenting."

 

Of course, I say lean. Pangloss is right - you can't simply force enough maturity to be able to handle everything. But I think the idea is that you can't protect them forever, and you want them to be as well-armed as possible when they face things on their own (which, as a truism, tends to happen sooner than parents think). Plus you have to keep in mind that by the time they need to know a lot of things, there's a good chance they won't be taking your advice that seriously anymore...

 

How that applies to "abstinence-only" education vs. actual education about real risk factors should, I think, be self-evident. And that's certainly a liberal/conservative divide, if you want to go there. I remember in the 2008 presidential elections in America, Mitt Romney made a big stink about Obama's advocacy of "age appropriate" sex ed for even very young children, trying to make him sound like a pervert ("I don't know about you, but I don't think any sex is appropriate for a 7 year old!"). Of course, in context, the "age appropriate" sex ed was things like how to avoid sexual abuse. "If an adult touches you this way, tell a teacher" etc. The horror!

[Moontanman]

So let me get this straight. You think my daughter not having a mobile phone will not prevent her from getting sent inappropriate pictures on her mobile?

 

It might prevent her from getting inappropriate material on her phone but her friends have them and they do share! The idea that sexting will ruin their lives is bullshit. Getting caught might be avery bad thing and I would stress that being caught is very bad in our day and age but having pics of your self out there or seeing others will not hurt you but it does make you look stupid for trusting a teenage boy not to share any pics you send.

 

I know many people want thier kids to be as naive as possible but being innocent can also cause you to be easily taken advantage of.

 

And on the other issue, I never said one should teach only abstinence. The funny thing about so many so-called (read self-declared) liberals, is that they are only tolerant of opinions that fit with their preconceptions of liberalism. Not very liberal...

 

Teaching only abstinence is just plain silly, no intelligent person who really wants mature children who can make good decisions on their own would teach such a one sided lifestyle. For the record Severn I honestly doubt you would be the type to teach only one side of an issue.

 

But smile when you say liberal, a big part of the liberal ideal is being able to see issues in living color rather than simply black and white. Good vision is also part of being intelligent, but I reject the labels of Liberal or Conservative, both labels are far too restrictive for me. Both so called "sides" are full of idiots who cannot think for themselves.

 

I raised what I think (and most who know them would agree) are fine young men. I told them up front about sex as soon as they wanted to know, I told them the truth. No scare tactics or just because I said so tactics. (I did the same thing on drugs as well) I told them that one day they would look back on being teenagers and realize they did not know as much as they thought they did then. Both of them have come back to me after they got into their 20's and told me how accurate that was and how glad they were I gave them the facts and didn't lie.

 

Raising a daughter would be a nightmare i think, (just remembering myself as a teenage boy is enough to make me glad I had boys, lol) but girls deserve the truth as well as boys and i am sure yours will make the right choices based on what you tell her. You strike me as an intelligent man so i am sorry if you took what I said as demeaning in anyway. (but it was funny)

[Severian]

It won't prevent her from getting inappropriate pictures *in general*, Severian, indeed so. We have the internet at home and in schools, nowadays, and there are so many places where kids and teens can be exposed to inappropriate materials is enormous.

 

So is it your opinion that, since we can't remove exposure to all undesirable images, we shouldn't remove exposure from any? I don't know about you, but I think when I was a child, I would have been more 'disturbed' by being sent a naked picture of a class-mate than by seeing a sex scene in a movie.

 

However, education - to know how to deal and handle "inappropriate material" and teach self confidence and pride in oneself so they won't *WANT* to participate in those things, sounds ot me to be much more effective.

 

Of course, but that is an entirely separate issue. Any good parent needs to help their child understand the world around them. Rules should never be declared simply as 'rules' - they should be motivated to the child. We must explain why these rules are important so that the child is able to make a rational decision about when rules should be broken. In my opinion, an ability to break rules rationally is as important as a desire to keep them. Even if the children don't understand these rational reasons yet, you should still explain them because it makes it clear to them that every rule worth keeping has a motivation.

 

Yes, and you keep jumping to conclusions and having something stuck at some orifice. Good god, Severian, I was *KIDDING*. Joking. Tongue-in-cheek remark I actually thought you'd laugh at.. ha-ha inaccurate "jab" at ya. We do it a lot in the forum, but it seems you just jump to conclusions.

 

[snip]

 

And not everything I say is meant to hurt you, Severian. Lighten up, it was a joke.

 

That is an interesting conclusion. I posted a two line comment, and yet I have something "stuck at some orifice". You, on the other hand, responded with a rather lengthy and (seemingly) emotional defence as if I had attacked you personally.

 

And what the hell does anything have to do with liberals!?

 

I was making the point that a true liberal would embrace the rights of others to follow the path (in this case regarding parenting) that they think is best. The attitude that parents should not try and protect their children from malign influences, is not liberal at all.

 

You seem to jump to the conclusion that since I'm a liberal in a specific subject I'm a liberal in everything, and that everything I say stem out of my LIBERAL approach. I'm not liberal about everything.

 

((BTW, The folks who used to read what I had to say about politics will probably strongly disagree with the idea that I'm a liberal))

When you just throw out this "thing about liberals" statements you seem to enjoy making, you're flattening my views into this black-and-white static flat view *YOU* define. Thank you, but I'm well rounded, I have other views that aren't necessaarily liberal and I would appreciate if you stop using that as a social curse every time you think anyone in the forum that *HAS* remotely liberal views as "you're all the same, I know this tactic" claim.

 

I don't tactic, I debate. I'm not a group representative, I'm a person.

 

I would very much appreciate it if you stop grouping me into groups that I don't necessarily belong to. I give you that courtesy by not assuming what hypothetical GROUP you might belong to, and not refering to such group when I answer your claims, I would appreciate getting it from you, too.

 

I criticised certain liberals who I felt did not fully understand the point of liberalism - I never said that you were one, or indeed that you were even a liberal. I think your response (which, let's be honest, was a bit of a rant) indicates that you feel it may be true for you too though. Perhaps you need to talk this through with someone?

 

But it is the effectiveness of that parenting which quote unquote liberals and quote unquote progressives are challenging, and their challenges are directly reinforced by the psychological literature, and are further supported by the science of child and human development.

 

I would dispute that. I don't see any studies in which this is scientifically tested. Please show me a study (with large statistics) in which all the children are loved and well educated by their parents, but in one half of the sample are allowed to view pornography, while in the other are not. Please also demonstrate that this lead to better psychological health in the children allowed to view the pornography. I don't think you will be able to.

[mooeypoo]

Severian, you seem to have missed my point (again).

 

Here's a summary of my position: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=533707&postcount=40

 

Read what I wrote instead of assuming what I mean.

 

~moo

[Severian]

Read what I wrote instead of assuming what I mean.

 

I responded directly to your points in your first response by quoting you. If you are not going to even consider them, what is the point of debating? There seems little point in responding to your other post (the one you link to) if you are just going to ignore my responses.

 

But in the spirit of concession....

 

But there is quite a substantial proof that preventing teens access doesn't quite help - which is what the "abstinence only" remarks were meant to raise.

 

What does this even mean 'doesn't quite help'. Either it helps or it doesn't. I contend that preventing children access does help in reducing their exposure to questionable material. Do you disagree with this?

 

The issue is twofold: The gaming and television industries are irresponsible, in my view. The shows we have on TV nowadays are *harmful* to kids (hell, some of them are harmful to adults) and some are just idiotic and inappropriate. Same goes with video games and cellphone use.

 

I disagree. The gaming and tv industries are simply producing content with demand. It is our reponsibility, both directly and through our elected representatives, to make sure it does not adversely effect our children.

 

Last night I went to see Avatar at the movies and was surprised to see it had a 12A rating (anyone under 12 needs to be accompanied by an adult). A 5 year old going with a parent to see Avatar is inappropriate in my view, but allowed under the rules. However, this would not be the fault of the film makers, but the fault of the parent and the BBFC.

 

My point is that if you tell your child to avoid something that he's exposed to regardless, you don't really equip him or her to *deal* with it.

 

No-one is disputing that. I was disputing the notion that one should not restrict what children are exposed to because it it makes no difference. I think simply reducing the amount of harmful things a child is exposed to is generally beneficial.

 

And yet, unless you lock up your kid in a basement, you really can't avoid their exposure to it.

 

Not providing your child with a mobile phone is hardly the same thing as "locking up your kid in a basement".

[Phi for All]

Severian, you seem to have missed my point (again).

 

Here's a summary of my position: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=533707&postcount=40

 

Read what I wrote instead of assuming what I mean.

 

~moo

mooeypoo, I have to say, I've never seen you this way before. You've been strawmanning Severian repeatedly in this thread, misrepresenting what he has so carefully said, and you've been pretty abusive as well, with the "stuck at some orifice" remark and the (again) emphasis above. To restate your position here is superfluous; Severian wasn't commenting on your overall position, he made some very targeted comments to some very targeted quotes.

 

Sorry, but I think some perspective is much needed here.

[mooeypoo]

I responded directly to your points in your first response by quoting you. If you are not going to even consider them, what is the point of debating? There seems little point in responding to your other post (the one you link to) if you are just going to ignore my responses.

It seems to me that you read only parts of what I said and misrepresented others. In the spirit of concession, though, I will go over the points you're making now and perhaps make things clearer.

 

What does this even mean 'doesn't quite help'. Either it helps or it doesn't. I contend that preventing children access does help in reducing their exposure to questionable material. Do you disagree with this?

I understand from your position that you see things as "either or". I don't. I see a wide range of options, filled with gray areas. In my view, as I explained, there's a range.

 

I contend that preventing children access helps in reducing their exposure for a short time, and doesn't help in the long run, because they will - whether we like it or not - be exposed to this material regardless.

 

My point is that whether we decide to reduce their access or not, we have to *add* an element of education to it, as well, otherwise when the child is exposed to these horrible aspects later on he won't know how to handle them and the result can be worse.

 

This isn't an "either or". Your suggestion helps a little. I contend it doesn't help in the long run.

 

I disagree. The gaming and tv industries are simply producing content with demand. It is our reponsibility, both directly and through our elected representatives, to make sure it does not adversely effect our children.

Right, but that's a different argument. Whether or not we should try to influence the companies to make different types of content is an issue that we can discuss separately. My points was about the access; I gave these as example of how the "sexting" isn't a localized phenomenon - you have more bad influence in multiple fronts. If you choose to prevent access to one, then you are bound to prevent access to all. If that is your MAIN solution then it will only work until the child is exposed to the outside world through his friends, school or any extracurricular activities.

 

The difference, though, is that as a parent you can educate the child and teach him how to be SMART about handling the horrible outside world, while if you choose to prevent her access, the control of how to deal with it transfers to whoever introduces it to her. This introduction is bound to happen if your child has access to the outside world. That was my point.

 

Last night I went to see Avatar at the movies and was surprised to see it had a 12A rating (anyone under 12 needs to be accompanied by an adult). A 5 year old going with a parent to see Avatar is inappropriate in my view, but allowed under the rules. However, this would not be the fault of the film makers, but the fault of the parent and the BBFC.

I agree it is the responsibility of the parent. To be honest, it is the responsibility of the parent to know what their child is exposed to even after 12, in my opinion, though that's a whole new and separate and difficult debate we can have later.

 

I don't trust the "ratings" of films anyways, honestly. I saw a movie rated PG-13 that I wouldn't let my 16 year old cousin watch. On the other hand, I have a friend with a 15 year old daughter whom I would likely not mind her seeing such movie, because she is likely to handle it just fine. So, yes, I think it's the parents' responsibility, but I do agree that something should be done with the industry.

 

What and how to change the industry, if at all, is a different argument, though.

 

And I don't know what BBFC is.

 

No-one is disputing that. I was disputing the notion that one should not restrict what children are exposed to because it it makes no difference. I think simply reducing the amount of harmful things a child is exposed to is generally beneficial.

Interesting. I wrote that the issue is two-fold.. that one should be responsible about what their child is viewing (hence, put limitations) *while* teaching them how to handle it. You disagreed with that point, and yet you claim here that we're in agreement..?

 

I might have been misunderstood, then.

 

My point is this: just like in sex education, ignoring the problem will not equip the children to properly deal with it when they are exposed to it. And they *WILL* be exposed to it. The point I'm making, then, is that the parents MUST deal with this issue in the form of education along some limitation. I personally don't think children have any use for cellphones until they are spending long periods of time away from home, so I do support putting some amount of limitations. I just don't support avoiding the problem altogether by preventing access.

 

That was my point, and that was also the point I was trying to make with the tongue-in-cheek jab about the "abstinence only education". I see quite a lot of parallels between the two cases.

 

Not providing your child with a mobile phone is hardly the same thing as "locking up your kid in a basement".

Severian, read the ENTIRE point I was making. I wasn't equating the two at all.

 

I said that unless you lock your kid in the basement, your kid will eventually be exposed to things you dislike. The parent should deal with it instead of trying to fight the unavoidable.

 

mooeypoo, I have to say, I've never seen you this way before. You've been strawmanning Severian repeatedly in this thread, misrepresenting what he has so carefully said, and you've been pretty abusive as well, with the "stuck at some orifice" remark and the (again) emphasis above. To restate your position here is superfluous; Severian wasn't commenting on your overall position, he made some very targeted comments to some very targeted quotes.

 

Sorry, but I think some perspective is much needed here.

I don't think I have strawmanned anything, on the contrary, if you read my points I believe it were my points that were strawmanned a few times. I assume unintentionally.

 

I pointed out my position quite clearly. True, I lost my temper. I'm human, it happens, I also made a conscious decision to not address the temper tantrum on my side and Severian answers to it to avoid further derailing of the thread.

 

Apparently, that didn't work.

 

I apologize for my temper flare. I've been on this forum long enough for most of you to know this rarely happens. The statements that were made pissed me off; instead of taking a step back, drinking hot cocoa and relaxing, I answered them. My fault. I'm also human, and I do get angry just like anyone else on this forum. I am hoping that this solves the "rant" issue (justified or not), and we can continue to actually debating the points at hand.

 

Instead of putting up subversive misrepresentations of what I said ("you mean to say" [not what I said] statements) I would hope Severian (and others) could go over the post I pointed out as a summary of my view and instead of assuming I meant X (when I didn't) read my points and see if there are still things that are unclear.

 

If there's anything unclear in the point I'm making (which I summarize in post #40), please ask.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Regarding Severian's request for a study: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/979435/mens-porn-study-fails-to-find-smut-virgins

[Phi for All]

I don't think I have strawmanned anything, on the contrary, if you read my points I believe it were my points that were strawmanned a few times. I assume unintentionally.

You started this whole line of reasoning by strawmanning Severian's responses to teaching abstinence with an argument about teaching abstinence-only. Then when he asked why his daughter not having a mobile phone wouldn't prevent her from getting sent inappropriate pictures on her mobile phone, you strawmanned him about internet pictures and television.

 

Your overall stance is not in question here. Losing your temper because someone didn't get your joke shouldn't really be a justification. It's very hard for someone to "lighten up" when you come on so strongly in your own argument.

 

You know I love you madly but I think you're out of line on this one. Your remarks seemed to be attempts to marginalize and ridicule a perfectly legitimate stance, and I think you know how I feel about that style of debate.

 

I'm done with my rant unless you still think you're the injured party here.

[mooeypoo]

Seeing as this just feels like a repetitive, quite frustrating exercise, I'm withdrawing from the argument.

 

Whatever I had to say, I did, and I explained my statements - be them tongue-in-cheek, annoyed, or happy - and I see no more value in continuing to have a "deaf" conversation. I'm obviously missing something here.

 

This might be a language barrier thing here, but I really feel like I'm repeating my points and either no one understands what I'm sying (which makes it my fault) or I have lost the ability to see clearly in this argument (which is, too, my fault).

 

There are other people who debate, and I won't be the one contributing to the derailing of the thread, specially on something that strikes me as just a circular case of misunderstandings.

 

Seems like this thread will do better without me.

 

~moo