@Taleya

I've not moved the goal posts.

This thread relates to 'working with children' and policies regarding background checks of those who do.

One toot read, in part, "Statistically women are the outlier offenders, around 5% or less for known sexual abuse."

You replied, "Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory."

I asked for more information regarding your "statistics" and you provided a report related to 'filicide' in the context of 'domestic violence'. This is outside the scope of any "working with children" checks.

You wrote, "The original claims were not restricted to childcare..."

I haven't moved the goal posts at all.

This isn't a game. I am genuinely interested if you know of any statistical evidence that women, in a capacity for which they require a "working with children" background check, "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".

@Taleya

"Statistically"

I would like to see those specific statistics.

Please tell me where I can see them.

@rowinofwin

@Zagorath

Yeah. I used to encounter something akin to the 'fall back' solution when trying to watch the odd video on YT. (The video would usually be something as innocuous as 'Bambi Meets Godzilla'... and f**king Google would want me to Sign In to view it. No.)

No matter how the government tries to protect our community's 'precious little darlings' within a week or two, some teenager will release a fully encrypted app that's onboarded by 'invitation only', where they'll collectively plan to kill us all in our beds!

@brucethemoose

Yeah, cool!

I know nothing about radioactive contamination in the environment.

I was merely commenting on the 'fearmongering' aspect.

It should (hopefully) be uncommon to see 'fearmongering' or 'click bait' from The Guardian, but everyone should be alert to 'alarmist' language.

The Guardian was perhaps unclear that:
Some sites have 4x the 'nominal background radiation', and
Some sites have up to 4500x the 'nominal background radiation'.

But, I don't think The Guardian was 'fearmongering'...
😁

I'm going to continue to stay away from all radioactive sources while preparing my banana smoothies on a granite bench top, and smoking the odd cigarette!

I couldn't possibly be exposed to any form of radiation from those activities!
☢️

@Joshi

One solution could be to make terms such as 'news' or 'current affairs' or 'journalism' protected terms.

Anybody can claim to be a "nutritionist" but only those with actual recognised qualifications may describe themselves as "dieticians".

The news media could be given tax breaks under the strict condition they produce only accurate and unbiased journalism.

"Advertorials", and "puff pieces" would be banned and if a news organisation broke the rules, they would be fined heavily and lose their tax breaks.

Thoughts?

@RaymondPierreL3

@Taleya

SM?
Sado-masochism?

Ohhhh....
Social Media!

Come to think of it, aren't they the same thing?

@CTDummy