Nanny Staters

DickSwiveller

Just reading Ciara Kelly in the Mail this morning, urging the government to ban smartphones for under 12s. The government are on the verge of setting a minimum price for alcohol. Is anyone else sick of these very privileged, middle class people lecturing ordinary people on how they should live their lives?

LirW

I don't get what's problematic with either of these.

Donald Trump

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Just reading Ciara Kelly in the Mail this morning, urging the government to ban smartphones for under 12s. The government are on the verge of setting a minimum price for alcohol. Is anyone else sick of these very privileged, middle class people lecturing ordinary people on how they should live their lives?

I have been in contact with your government.

I would like to forewarn you that they are planning to put a tax on dick swivelling next.

DavidLyons_

Ciara Kelly is a pain in the hole.

DickSwiveller

LirW wrote: »

I don't get what's problematic with either of these.

Excessive use of State power. Do you want the government micro-managing your life?

Ajsoprano

Phones are the new guitars or TVs or walkmen.
Leave them at it they’ll tire of them eventually.

One eyed Jack

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Just reading Ciara Kelly in the Mail this morning, urging the government to ban smartphones for under 12s. The government are on the verge of setting a minimum price for alcohol. Is anyone else sick of these very privileged, middle class people lecturing ordinary people on how they should live their lives?

I would have thought the middle class are ordinary people. When did the Mail become the newspaper of record for the middle classes? It's a rag I never took any notice of anyway, so no, I'm not sick of them because I never took any notice of them in the first place.

DontThankMe

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Just reading Ciara Kelly in the Mail this morning, urging the government to ban smartphones for under 12s. The government are on the verge of setting a minimum price for alcohol. Is anyone else sick of these very privileged, middle class people lecturing ordinary people on how they should live their lives?

This absolute madness lad! You forgot about the sugar tax too basically trying to force us to eat less sugary foods! What's next an extra tax on takeaways so we eat less fast food! We need to get out and protest against this nanny state stuff I'll bring the pitchforks you bring the torches?

DickSwiveller

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would have thought the middle class are ordinary people. When did the Mail become the newspaper of record for the middle classes? It's a rag I never took any notice of anyway, so no, I'm not sick of them because I never took any notice of them in the first place.

I'm talking about the Irish Mail which is a decent paper. The middle class twits are all the do-gooders in politics and the media who think they are re doing us all a favour by micro managing our lives.

DickSwiveller

DontThankMe wrote: »

This absolute madness lad! You forgot about the sugar tax too basically trying to force us to eat less sugary foods! What's next an extra tax on takeaways so we eat less fast food! We need to get out and protest against this nanny state stuff I'll bring the pitchforks you bring the torches?

Making poorer people pay more. Great idea. It's okay for vegan trendies but some of us like indulging ourselves.

Snotty

The simple truth is, the average joe needs restrictions and limited access to things like alcohol, foods that are bad for you, credit, drugs, etc. If we are not capable of policing ourselves, which we aren't, then we need someone to do it for us.
Look at what unlimited access to guns has caused in America. We would be the exact same only that was restricted from us many years ago.

Are Am Eye

It keeps peoples minds off the corrupt instituitions of state and corrupt individuals by saying look over there joe citizen eat three cookies today. And he stayed up late one night last week.

Ajsoprano

Snotty wrote: »

The simple truth is, the average joe needs restrictions and limited access to things like alcohol, foods that are bad for you, credit, drugs, etc. If we are not capable of policing ourselves, which we aren't, then we need someone to do it for us.
Look at what unlimited access to guns has caused in America. We would be the exact same only that was restricted from us many years ago.

Why though. Who gives a toss whether people chose to die from farting out their liver or until they are 100 in a nursing home with staff to wipe their hoops for them.

eeguy

Ajsoprano wrote: »

Why though. Who gives a toss whether people chose to die from farting out their liver or until they are 100 in a nursing home with staff to wipe their hoops for them.

If they're dying then they're not working.

It's in the states interest to have happy healthy sober, upstanding citizens.

Grayson

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Just reading Ciara Kelly in the Mail this morning, urging the government to ban smartphones for under 12s. The government are on the verge of setting a minimum price for alcohol. Is anyone else sick of these very privileged, middle class people lecturing ordinary people on how they should live their lives?

And we stop under 12's from drinking alcohol and having sex.

Fcuking nanny state.

DickSwiveller

Grayson wrote: »

And we stop under 12's from drinking alcohol and having sex.

Fcuking nanny state.

Fantastic point. It's exactly the same. Profound...

Grayson

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Fantastic point. It's exactly the same. Profound...

It is the same. We ban loads of stuff from children. Some because they can deal with it physically (Alcohol) and some because they can't deal with it emotionally (non penetrative sexual activity for example).

I have no problem with banning smartphones so long as there's evidence that shows children will be better for it.

Whereas you seem to object to the government making laws on principle. You haven't actually provided any evidence, or even an opinion as to why these laws are bad.

DickSwiveller

Grayson wrote: »

It is the same. We ban loads of stuff from children. Some because they can deal with it physically (Alcohol) and some because they can't deal with it emotionally (non penetrative sexual activity for example).

I have no problem with banning smartphones so long as there's evidence that shows children will be better for it.

Whereas you seem to object to the government making laws on principle. You haven't actually provided any evidence, or even an opinion as to why these laws are bad.

It's not the same. A smartphone is not comparable to the 2 examples you give. I've no problem with government making laws as long as they don't end up micromanaging everything we do.

Where do you draw the line?If there is evidence to show that children would be better for it if computer games, laptops and television were banned, would you be in favour? The effects are exactly the same, maybe worse.

I think minimum pricing is silly and just a money making attempt pretending to be for our health.
Don't know about an outright ban on under 12s having smartphones but if there's good reason for it just put it out there first instead of a blanket ban

Ajsoprano

What about them damn walkmen. Surely if we ban anything it’s them. I haven’t been a kid in a long time but I remember my brother had the damn thing on at all times and my da used to say he’d turn out deaf but he just kept using it.

I’m gonna ring him now to check how much it ruined his life.

SEPT 23 1989

if they did a decent days work they wouldn't have the energy to worry about other people's lives

Richard Hillman

Medical Professionals have far too much sway in society at the moment and it doesn't help when the Taoiseach is from that background himself.

There is supposed to be a medium of what the good doctor says and what we want to do as individuals. If the doctor says only 6 pints per week instead of 12, we meet at 9.

We are currently living through the mess that Child Psychologists have left us in from the late 90s-early 00, where parents were to encourage everything their kids chose to do. Then we got left with a mix of Feral Teenagers and Generation Snowflake.

In years to come we will see the effect of Self Styled Nutritionists and people ending up with basic nutrition deficiencies because Food X was the devil.

Mental Health "Activists" got a massive platform in the media and suddenly everyone is a manic depressant

The good doctors need to back off or we'll be going through Generation Hypochondriac.

andekwarhola

LirW wrote: »

I don't get what's problematic with either of these.

The only people that actually swallow the MUP act are cranks, people with skin in the game like publicans or puritanical, recovering boozehounds that want everybody else to pay for the fact that they couldn't handle alcohol.

Grayson

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's not the same. A smartphone is not comparable to the 2 examples you give. I've no problem with government making laws as long as they don't end up micromanaging everything we do.

Where do you draw the line?If there is evidence to show that children would be better for it if computer games, laptops and television were banned, would you be in favour? The effects are exactly the same, maybe worse.

This is the first post, in this thread, where you've presented any argument besides Government = bad.

Now, show that smartphones are harmless and you've actually got an argument.

btw, the point to smartphone bans is that a smartphone is carried everywhere and is constantly connected. So it's not the same as your examples.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

DickSwiveller

Grayson wrote: »

This is the first post, in this thread, where you've presented any argument besides Government = bad.

Now, show that smartphones are harmless and you've actually got an argument.

btw, the point to smartphone bans is that a smartphone is carried everywhere and is constantly connected. So it's not the same as your examples.

Thanks for the patronizing tone. Always comes off very well. If that's the point of the ban then it sounds very stupid. Sitting in front of the telly all day or playing computer games all day is hardly harmless. You can carry an ipod around all day. Again, should they be banned?

Discodog

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Ciara Kelly is a pain in the hole.

I though that George Hook was bad with his personal agendas but she takes it to a whole new level. I turn over to the news at 1.00pm.

scamalert

interesting topic ireland is already way to much of nanny state to regulate peoples lives,granting monopoly for few ,new rules regulations that usually apply to regular joe, but scumbag is free to roam, and many similar stuff.

Anyway one day had discussion with parents in their 30-50s about smartphones for kids and outcome was that most agreed they wouldn't give their kids phone, some went extreme as up to 16yrs of age.

funny thing is thou if you asked any of them do they know how to access parental control on router etc - youd get a stare of 3yr old. they no f*** clue about current trends wouldn't know difference between apple phone nor samsung let alone how to create email, and their kids would prob set that crap for them.

Id say it would be fare to implement smth like that but first parent has to pass test on setting parental controls within 30mins on device if failed they should be taken any smart device and banned from using any smart electronics,for their own stupidity,of being lazy parents who cant even read up manual on how to setup such stuff and actually communicate with their kids about pros and cons of using social media internet.

McMurphy

I kinda agree with the set age to own a smart phone for various reasons.

Stephen15

It's typical of the government here in Ireland to punish anyone but the perpetrators as the perpetrators are the ones who come from a "tough upbringing" and we should really feel sorry for them. No the fact of the matter they're drug dealing scum, thieving scum, paedophile scum or rapist scum.

A nanny state is an easy and cheap way as it punishes those who are the potential victims of crime and protects criminals. Until the Guards get tough on crime and long sentences are handed out to those who are murders, rapists and paedophiles then the nanny state will continue.

In this instance we are taking phones away from children now I don't it's healthy to be on their phones all day they should have a balanced lifestyle but come on now the genie is out of the bottle so we punish them and do nothing to combat the problem that is online paedophile scum.

What should be done is the Gardai should set up fake accounts similar to paedo hunters in the UK and the scum will eventually get the message that's it's too risky they could easily be nabbed and the problem would eventually mitigate if the Guards kept on top of it.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Koala Sunshine

It is actually quite shocking how addicted people appear to be to their smart phones. Following that dopamine hit endlessly while life passes by.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Grayson

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Thanks for the patronizing tone. Always comes off very well. If that's the point of the ban then it sounds very stupid. Sitting in front of the telly all day or playing computer games all day is hardly harmless. You can carry an ipod around all day. Again, should they be banned?

Point out anywhere you actually made an augment. Anywhere at all. You didn't. You stated a thread complaining about the government making laws. You mentioned two proposed laws that are completely unrelated and complained about both of them. All I did was point out how stupid your post was.

I think you seem to have also mistaken my pat in this. I'm not the government and at no point have I actually said that smartphones should be banned. (In the previous thread on minimum alcohol pricing I took the position that the law on pricing was wrong. I also provided a coherent argument to support my position)

You've said they shouldn't be banned. You said there shouldn't be minimum pricing. And your arguments for both was that they shouldn't be laws because government is bad and shouldn't be making laws.

If you want to argue against both these laws you should look at the governments reasoning and come up with a counter argument, hopefully backed up with some facts/evidence besides government=bad.

Grayson

Koala Sunshine wrote: »

It is actually quite shocking how addicted people appear to be to their smart phones. Following that dopamine hit endlessly while life passes by.

I read the paper on mine every morning on the way to work. When I'm on the bus I can see other screens and most have either Instagram, snapchat or Facebook on them.
It's strange how they are psychologically addictive and they're designed to do that. Rather than be a tool that is used they're designed to get people addicted.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Discodog wrote: »

I though that George Hook was bad with his personal agendas but she takes it to a whole new level. I turn over to the news at 1.00pm.

I loved Hook, Ciara Kelly has totally destroyed that show. I turn over too, can't stand the silly bint.

Hook is back on every Saturday, its a brilliant show and brightens my Saturday mornings no end.

Greentopia

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well that's a sad outlook on life and rather misanthropic.

I don't find the majority of people insufferable or horrible at all. I try and treat all with respect, kindness and positivity and I usually get back what I put out. I also don't allow negative people into my life.

Plus by far the single biggest indicator one will have a long and happy life is having a good network of social connections and strong relationships with people, so it pays to be nice and socially engaged. Data from the Blue Zones attest to that.

Have your kind of miserable attitude in life and don't be surprised if you end up alone. But hey...you have your phone eh?

Unless you're suffering from depression that is, in which case I really hope you find a way to deal with it.

Franz Von Peppercorn

scamalert wrote: »

interesting topic ireland is already way to much of nanny state to regulate peoples lives,granting monopoly for few ,new rules regulations that usually apply to regular joe, but scumbag is free to roam, and many similar stuff.

Anyway one day had discussion with parents in their 30-50s about smartphones for kids and outcome was that most agreed they wouldn't give their kids phone, some went extreme as up to 16yrs of age.

funny thing is thou if you asked any of them do they know how to access parental control on router etc - youd get a stare of 3yr old. they no f*** clue about current trends wouldn't know difference between apple phone nor samsung let alone how to create email, and their kids would prob set that crap for them.

I’ve just logged into my router and it doesn’t have any parental controls. Routers are advanced for most people. Anyway Would be useless once they left the building. Parental controls should be on the device.

Id say it would be fare to implement smth like that but first parent has to pass test on setting parental controls within 30mins on device if failed they should be taken any smart device and banned from using any smart electronics,for their own stupidity,of being lazy parents who cant even read up manual on how to setup such stuff and actually communicate with their kids about pros and cons of using social media internet.

Now that’s a nanny state.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Grayson wrote: »

I read the paper on mine every morning on the way to work. When I'm on the bus I can see other screens and most have either Instagram, snapchat or Facebook on them.
It's strange how they are psychologically addictive and they're designed to do that. Rather than be a tool that is used they're designed to get people addicted.

I’m not on FB my self, when I was I found it distracting. I feel that the people on the bus or train who use to read papers or novels at work now read those on devices.

The more social read FB rather than talk on the phone. so it looks less social than it was. But it is a misconception that people are not being social online - social media is social. Too social in fact. People are not being anti social but hyper social.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Patww79 wrote: »

My point was proven but a few posts down. It's proven even more in your post actually with those gutter tactics you're using to try and get a one-up with your last paragraph.

And then people wonder they're thought of as horrible nowadays... :rolleyes:

Hmm I thought she was showing concern.

Koala Sunshine

Patww79 wrote: »

Life is people, and people have become so insufferable and horrible that a phone is a beautiful alternative to dealing with them and having to interact with them. Let it pass by.

People are no more insufferable than they ever were.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

McMurphy

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Usually I'd agree - I'm a big complainer about Nanny statism etc but the fact is some parents are either too non tech savvy to keep a sufficient eye on the kid, or some are just downright lazy/lousy or careless.

Perhaps I'm biased here due to having 4 kids under 10, and obviously they, from time to time use my phone/tablet or they do be on YouTube via the smart t.v. or shield, but only when either my wife or I am with them.

If the kids owned their own device, they would assume it was theirs to do and use as they wish, that's a harder job to keep track of as to what they're viewing and who's contacting them. Thus harder to police.

I'm not comfortable thinking of one of mine waking up in the middle or the night reaching underneath the pillow or the bedside locker to log on to some site where anyone can get access to them.

Apart from the paedophile vunerability elements to them there is also the bullying risk.

mfceiling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The more social read FB rather than talk on the phone. so it looks less social than it was. But it is a misconception that people are not being social online - social media is social. Too social in fact. People are not being anti social but hyper social.

Sorry that's wrong. Look at any table of people in a bar - are they talking or on their phone?
Groups of young people taking photos of their "great" night out, uploading to social media then sitting back in silence, faces buried in a screen.
Couples having dinner - one goes to the bathroom and 2 seconds later their partner is on the phone.
Young people nowadays have lost the art of conversation. My eldest girl is friends with a girl who is prolific on Snapchat but when she visits she doesn't speak a word!!

Greentopia

Don't see a problem with under 12s not being allowed smartphones. Research has shown smartphone addiction can cause an imbalance in brain chemistry https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171130090041.htm
so the later kids get their hands on them the better I think. If I had kids they wouldn't get a phone until they're at least 13 or 14, depending on how mature they were, and their use of it would be supervised and restricted.

As for alcohol minimum pricing-I don't agree in principle but then we've proven we can't have low cost alcohol in Ireland because too many people over indulge causing huge societal problems that affect us all. Other countries can do it like the one I currently live in because they have a more mature and responsible attitude towards alcohol. That's why I can buy a decent enough bottle of German lager for as cheap as 35cents in the local supermarkets and society doesn't fall apart here.

Do that in Ireland and the result would be A&E's even more crowded than they usually are with the many victims of alcohol abuse.

Mutant z

In fairness the smartphone one is common sense why would someone that young even need one they should be outside playing with their friends and enjoying their childhood do they really need to be exposed to adult content when they're clearly not ready.

Greentopia

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Where?

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you've taken me up wrong! I was simply being honest in my assessment of your post. I thought it as shame that's how you feel, and my last paragraph was me acknowledging that perhaps there may be a genuine and understandable reason why you may feel as you do about people.

My sentiments were genuine and I certainly wasn't trying to get one up on you! I apologise if that's how it came across to you. Truly.

Franz Von Peppercorn

mfceiling wrote: »

Sorry that's wrong. Look at any table of people in a bar - are they talking or on their phone?
Groups of young people taking photos of their "great" night out, uploading to social media then sitting back in silence, faces buried in a screen.
Couples having dinner - one goes to the bathroom and 2 seconds later their partner is on the phone.
Young people nowadays have lost the art of conversation. My eldest girl is friends with a girl who is prolific on Snapchat but when she visits she doesn't speak a word!!

None of that was what I was talking about. Since I was referring to a commute. Clearly not talking to people at a restaurant is a unsocial but I doubt it’s changed that much, I never see phone usage at formal restaurants. Sometimes at breakfast but people often sat around reading in cafes.

branie2

I think it's a great idea