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?
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.
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.
Patww79 wrote: » This post has been deleted.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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!!
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Hmm I thought she was showing concern.
Greentopia wrote: » A person doesn't have to be known to me for me to show concern for them. Everyone here is a real human being behind their screens with their own issues and struggles they have to deal with. I was perhaps somewhat blunt, but yes my concern was genuine when I considered how the way you feel may not be your fault. Anyway, peace.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » I kinda agree with the set age to own a smart phone for various reasons.
Mutant z wrote: » 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.
King of Kings wrote: » but the OP has a valid point , pious and smug commentators (and campaigners) seek to have the government micro manage many aspects of our lives. Ruin our fun so to speak. I should be able to gorge myself to an early grave on McD's and tesco vodka if I so please....
DickSwiveller wrote: » 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?
Greentopia wrote: » What about the societal cost for someone gorging themselves to death on McD's or vodka though? not to mention the loss for family and friends...kids especially who lose parents to preventable CVD or liver cirrhosis. Unless you pay the entire and full cost yourself of resultant medical expenses-which no private insurance ever does-it's going to end up costing the country huge sums of money if you pop your clogs before time. Not just medical care costs but loss of income tax revenue, loss of whatever skills and talents you bring to the employment market... There's valid reasons why governments want people to live long and healthy lives. It benefits not just the individual but society as a whole. And btw if you think there is a nanny state in Ireland, move to Sweden and see how highly regulated everything is there I couldn't buy ANY strong alcohol over 3.5% to take home anywhere other than a state owned monopoly called the Systembolaget chain of stores. And then only during their rather restrictive opening hours, you have to be minimum 20 years old to buy there, and they don't do any offers or discounts on alcohol. That's how they've dealt with the alcohol problem they had. :pac:
