{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/19/2015 8:43:42 PM
2
Kinda feel like you're missing the gist of what I'm saying.
It has nothing to do with being a kid. Age doesn't matter. Being a kid doesn't mean you have to be gullible or more so compared to someone that's, let's say, 22. Them being a kid just means they are more likely/generally implied to be more naive.
They gave someone control.
Yeah, what the person did is shitty yet that doesn't change that the kid willing trusted them even though they were a mutual.
English
-
Edited by Glaedr11: 2/19/2015 9:22:00 PMYES BEING A KID HAS SOMETHING TO WITH IT. "He's just more inclined to be naive." Thats all the more reason to feel bad for the guy. He did not know any better. You can have an IQ of 2000 and if you haven't been to school and learned things you won't gain knowledge. A kid has not had the chance to learn that the world sucks. And then when someone takes advantage of that, it's wrong. It's not the kids fault.
-
A kid doesn't have to learn for his/herself and experience something first hand to learn a lesson/know the world is cruel. More inclined does not mean they have to be, regardless of experiences. Most if not all at some point were told not to talk to strangers, to go somewhere with a stranger, etc. This falls into the "things to not do with strangers" category.
-
A kids brain is not developed enough to understand the concept of Internet strangers screwing him over or "resisting giving into the naive" , if you will
-
More like "yeah the kid gave some stranger control" (most likely because he was duped into doing so as a naive child, God forbid) but that doesn't change the shitty act these morons took part in.
