If not to convince you you are mistaken in your opinion on this matter, then this post will serve to clean up some serious misinterpretations on your part, which I find surprising given you are an "emotional health professional," whatever that implies.
In case you haven't been following (which your response generally suggests that you probably haven't been very closely), we are for the most part not talking about those kinds of infractions. We're talking mostly about *********** that is completely permissible within the TOS.
I actually have been following this argument and am well aware that you are referring to mostly ************ but that does not mean I should refrain from using the examples in my argument just because you don't feel like adding them to the scope of your own. We're also discussing whether or not is really IS permissible based on the TOS that is worded rather loosely.
This is definitely the worst way you could have started your counterargument if you wanted me to take it seriously. What this tells me is that whether or not I'm right or wrong, you are completely incapable of judging an argument on its merit, you have a very transparent bias, and that there is really no point in wasting my time trying to convince you otherwise. You'll just be another person who is wrong on the internet.
I'm sorry that you are so mistaken by my informing you of the poor quality of your argument, professional or not. There are good lawyers and bad lawyers, but at the end of the day they are still lawyers. There are also good lawyers who make bad arguments. Maybe this was just not your day. I am actually someone who has no problem weighing arguments before I make a definite decision. Yours just happened to be so flawed by my standards that I merely pointed out the issues. Rather than address them, you try to turn this into some personal attack to avoid discussing the issue that is actually at hand. I would definitely want someone to tell me if my argument was awful, and then point out why. Instead of wallowing in my ignorance, like you are telling me you want to do, I prefer to gain as much information as I can. I do have a bias, as everyone does in an argument, but I'm not "just another person who is wrong on the internet." I could easily say the same thing about you, but rather than stoop to such a petty level, I merely pointed out that your argument was terrible, not your point of view or you as a person. But I hope you feel all big and emotionally-health-professional in control and that you are so above being corrected. I am amazed you have gotten this far in life with such a world view.
Really? Because I'm an emotional health professional, and encouraging people to develop resilience and defense mechanisms for their own emotional health is actually one of the defining goals of positive emotional health. But I'll be sure to let my profession know that we're doin it rong because you think it's lunacy. The fact is, you're expressing an unwillingness to account for your own emotional wellbeing, and that is entirely your prerogative as a person. However, YOU are the one who will suffer as a result, and that is not healthy. The more you make other people accountable for your emotional wellbeing, the less likely you are to be an emotionally healthy person. Good advice is to allow others to improve your emotional state whenever possible, and also whenever possible, don't allow them to harm it.
This idea that you should just "feel your feelings" suggests that your initial emotional reaction to a situation is always the right one, and is complete nonsense.
The health profession isn't exactly the most praised category for being able to help people with their issues. Depending on what kind you are, exactly, stating that doesn't really give me any insight as to how to interpret this portion of your post. There are plenty of health professionals out there who are idiots, just as I stated earlier, there are idiot lawyers. I love how you somehow also derived from my post that I was pulling these arguments from personal experience. I actually don't have problems with people being rude to me on the internet, I'm simply speaking out for others who I know feel differently because people like you are trying to make them be a certain way so that others can get away with being desstructive. Maybe instead of making people be less sensitive, you should try fixing the people with the actual problems in the first place. But, hey, who am I to tell you how to do your jobs. It's way easier to just tell people to not trust strangers than it is to actually try to prevent people from being murderers, right? I never said that anyone's emotions were right or wrong; it is you who is creating the standard.
So there's no good reason for you to try to force people to not act in ways that bother you? Interesting. I'm going to allow you a do over on that one.
No, I'd actually like to leave it exactly where it is. I gave both sides of the argument in my post which you seemed to have skimmed over. I said BOTH people can walk away from the situation, and that it is all too often forced on the one who is being "the *****" instead of the jackass who can't use self control.
Um, usually when they're on the internet, they ARE in their own homes, right? So yes, they should feel EXACTLY as safe.
You're welcome to think that it's because I'm a stubborn nitwit, but the fact is that I'm just not going to agree with you on this, period. This is just a fair reality check so that you know to what extent you're wasting your breath if you earnestly want to convince me otherwise. I have afforded hundreds of hours of deliberation on the matter, and you don't have anything to say that I haven't already thoroughly considered.
The internet has been described as a different world and an "escape" by many people on this board. If you are so simple-minded as to believe that it is not a doorway that allows people to have access to the safety of someone else's home, I don't really know how to explain it otherwise. The internet can be dangerous, and being harassed by ***** is considered one of those dangers. So really, let's stop playing semantics when we both know it doesn't get us anywhere. I really don't care if I convince anyone otherwise, as long as people know there is another side to this argument and that people who do agree with me are not alone and should not feel like they are in the wrong and are overly-sensitive just because you say they are. Period. I respect your opinion, but rather than pull this move, which my friends and I refer to as "*****-***," it would have been a much smaller waste of breath if you had actually presented a different/better argument so I could have learned something from all of this other than the fact you turn kids into "emotional shields."