I do agree with you on point one, but regardless of how it is written it has no basis in fact other than a singular teen’s perception of his small microcosm. The tough thing is that he could be right, but we don’t know because there is nothing tangible to support him.

While I can appreciate how a teen thinks, I’ve been there obviously, I also remember learning that to communicate with adults I couldn’t expect them to accept my thoughts without support. I’m dismayed that this would have been published in the first place with the lack of evidence. That’s the saddest part of the situation.

There’s some basic truth to it, but there’s also 1) some incidence of socialized revolutionary lies (aka, what young people have trained each other to say in order to influence businesses to give them more for free – which is different from when they’re being truthful about what they won’t pay for). And 2) A lack of understanding of how an individual teenager grows and changes. It’s written in presentism, which is how most teens think – that what they feel at this moment is what they’ll always feel.

If you are going to make a statement of fact be prepared to back it up with something substantive. Frankly, I don’t see why this is such a big deal.

At first, a lawsuit may seem ridiculous, because most people don’t text while walking.

But if she had been paying attention to cars without looking down, then she also might have fell. And most people would probably say the lawsuit was valid in that case.

“…the Department of Environmental Protection said its workers had turned away briefly to grab some cones when the incident occurred.”

One of the workers should have stood next to the manhole to make sure no one fell into it until the cones were in place.