In article ,
 "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

> Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > In article ,
> >  "Hyerdahl"  wrote:
> >
> > > mark_sobolew...{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >> >
> > >  In all fairness, men do have a choice but it's similar to
> > > > the "men have a choice to not give women scissors lest
> > > > the women run around and hurt themselves" kind of thinking.
> > >
> > > Not really, Mark.  A woman who wants to give birth to a baby is not
> > > considered a danger to society or to herself.  WE simply don't look
> at
> > > having babies in that light.
> >
> > So who are the babies being protected from by legal
> > abandonment? :-)
>
> >From being abandoned in a way that might cause them pain, cold or
> death.

By whom? :-)

> > Unwed mothers don't kill babies, er, "neonates".
> > Garbage dumpsters kill neonates. :-)
>
> You're free to look at it that way, but if the choice is between saving
> the life of a neonate and letting it suffer, I pick saving it.  What
> would you pick?

This is a good example of the "men stopping women
from running around with scissors" mentality.  I don't
"pick" and choose to abandon babies in dumpsters resulting
in their death, that's the "primary parent"'s choice.

> > > > Recently, Home Depot celebrated a "victory"
where they only
> > > > had to pay a 100 grand or so (which mostly covered legal
> > > > fees for the plaintiffs) where two parents ABANDONED
> > > > their child in a home depot while they went off shopping
> > > > and the child hurt himself when he pulled a door display
> > > > down on him.
> > >
> > > So basically, you seem to be trying to say that having children is
> a
> > > danger to society?
> >
> > Unsupervised and poorly raised, certainly.  Most children
> > who commit crimes are the products of single mother
> > homes, for example.
>
> I don't know the case you're talking about, but if HD was negligent,
> they should pay for their portion of that negligence.  Again, I don't
> know the facts.  Common sense tells us that children do go into HD.

Children certainly walk on the street as well.  That doesn't
mean that parents should just walk away and let them play
in traffic!

> Common sense should tell us that a display that is unsafe for one child
> (unattended) might easily be unsafe to an attended child as well.

Only if "common sense" tells us that parents should just look
on while a child tries his hardest to pull a door down
onto himself.

At the risk of undermining my own case, :-), I'll mention
that I was kind of disgusted by HD on Donald Trump's
The Apparentice trying to encourage kids to come to HD
and spend "quality time" with their parents.

HD is full of dangerous things (with some of them
meant to try to "childproof" a home against those
same things :-)  Home improvement is not something
a small child should be introduced to. :-)

> > Home Depot isn't Disneyland.  It's a place people go to
> > buy equipment and supplies for many dangerous tasks.
>
> So, what if a mentally challenged adult came into HD to buy cement, and
> he pulled the display down on him.

Hmmm, so while buying cement he would be pulling down
door displays.   Is that your argument counselor? :-)

If the mentally challenged person is that, how shall
I put it, "special", then they shouldn't be buying cement
by themselves.  Their guardian who sends them there should
be held accountable.

>  Are you now suggesting that
> mentally challenged people shouldn't be expected to enter HD?

Er, no.

Nowhere did I say that children or mentally handicapable
people should not be allowed into HD.  I said that they
should be well appropriately supervised by their legal guardians.

Nice try at a strawman.

> What
> about supervised children who are there buying supplies for a club
> house?
> Hmmmmmm

Then clearly they would be restrained from harming
themselves and others.

> I guess the only children you have problems with are those of
> single moms.  I've come to expect that kind of argument from you.

My point was that children looked after by irresponsible
parents tend to hurt themselves and others.

> > IMO, the store should have sued the parents for
> > damanging their store display.
>
> I'm ok with that.  In fact, I agree with you.  The might have even made
> that a counter suit.  But if they were NEGLIGENT guess who would have
> won?

Of course, if a jury finds a defendant NEGLIGENT for failing
to prevent people from acting in a manner that's clear
to cause harm, then such a countersuit would fail.


> > >  Or are you suggesting that these particular
> > > parents did something to cause harm?
> >
> > They acted in a negligent manner causing a child
> > to harm itself and even possibly other customers who
> > may have been walking by.
>
> Again, you and I were not at the trial, so we don't know the level of
> apparent negligence was provided by HD.

So let's work with the facts that have been presented to
us by the media which talked to both sides.

>  Mark, in spirit, I'm with
> you...there's nothing I like less than an unsuperivised kidlet.  But
> I'm not on a mission against the kids of unwed mothers.  :-)

Oh, I can see how you felt a need to defend negligent parents
because they have so much in common with single mothers. :-)

> And, I
> prefer law to men on such a mission.  :-)  The law works well, and it
> may have worked well here.

It worked adequately.  The parents didn't get anything
after the lawyers sucked out their share and the lawyers
did a lot of work for a year for the equivalent of,
well, working at HD. :-)

I think the jury made a compromise and gave into the bleeding
hearts who wanted to award some money just to
get deliberations over with.

My boss was on a similar jury where a woman claimed to
be seriously injured due to a minor accident where it
was clear that she didn't have much evidence.
There were some jurors who were stuck on the
notion of assigning blame based upon material
circumstances: The accident was caused by the man
so he owed her something.  So they gave her
a token settlement which the lawyers ate up
(but didn't satisfy their appetites).

He laughed at how he remembed the plaintiff attorney's
faces as they were expecting their big contingency.
They looked like they had robbed a grave only
to find it empty. :-)

Fortunately, President George W. Bush just signed
a law reforming and limiting tort claims.
The law sometimes does work. :-)

> > > > Later, the parents claimed the child's injury had resulted
> > > > in some kind of learning disorder but testimony showed that
> > > > he had already been having problems at school before (Gee,
> > > > kids pulled down displays upon themselves having problems
> > > > at school?  Who would have guessed? :-)
> > >
> > > Sure, but I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make
> here.
> >
> > It's not too difficult to figure out: The parents let
> > a learning disabled child run around unsupervised,
> > harm himself, and then try to dishonestly pin the blame
> > on the school.
>
> ????  It seems to me the parents placed the blame on HD.  I don't see
> what the school has to do with this case.

Oops.  HD. :-)

> > > > My wife and other foreigners are continuously amazed
> > > > at how the notion of personal responsibility in
> > > > the American legal system is literally becoming a joke.
> > >
> > > Well, I'm a-ok with the acceptance of personal responsibility
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> > Where can I even start?  Women quit their jobs to
> > live off of someone else so they are making
> > "sacrifices", women who may kill their infants if
> > they cannot legally abandon them, women who
> > make bastard babies they don't want to accept
> > full resposibility for, socialist handout programs,
> > the list goes on...
> >
> Mark, you look at the entire world thru penis-coated glasses. Most
> normal folks don't seem to agree with you, in terms of courts, judges,
> legislators who want to collect more child support, etc.

"Germany has much better healthcare than the US" --
women's reproductive rights protester, DC 2004

What we know is that there are certainly judges and
political figures who don't mind redistributing income
provided they get to take a cut.  However, support
for socialist handouts has been waning as of late
as most working class women themselves don't want
to pay for other women's children.

And the levels of CS collected over the past 10 years hasn't
really increased.  What has happened is that the CS agencies
have taken on cases that were previously paid directly
from the father to the mother.

Overall, the well is drying up.  Too bad, so sad,
that senior citizens won't eat dog food so that
single mothers can take it easy, yes?

> I once knew a
> girl who claimed that all men were jerks.  She'd date one, and then
> another and finally, I suggested that if that was her experience then
> perhaps she should consider getting counseling to see why she was
> having that ongoing experience.  :-)

Or to ask whether the "men" were the jerks.

I was watching SatC and Carrie was going on and on
about how her boyfriend broke up with her using a post-it
note.  Gasp!  A post-it note!  How DARE he!

Yet, he clearly communicated his intentions rather than
just walking off and not saying anything at all (as
many people have been known to do and let the other
person get the hint.)

Carrie, in the series, had cheated on a man (and then
refused to marry him later), helped "Mr. Big"
commit adultery ultimately causing the cheated-upon
wife to lose a tooth and other horrible things too
numerous to mention.

Yet, she cried and whined about a boyfriend writing his
feelings on a post-it note?

> It's the same with you.  You'd
> prefer to see the world in terms of women who have hurt you.

So you say.  But I have a relationship and you don't.

>  I would
> think that now that you're allegedly married, that you'd want a fresh
> start with a new vision.

Er, if I had taken your advice before I would be quite alone
waiting for a liberated woman who doesn't exist.

> > Fortunately, patronizing protection for women is
> > increasingly becoming more like a lottery rather
> > than an entitlement.  Many women can't make tons
> > o' money with their women's studies or
> > English lit. degrees and can't find a professional
> > man to marry and often wind up having to pay
> > thousands for fertility clinic treatments to boot
> > (assuming they're lucky, they get to pay
> > thousands more for daycare and healthcare since
> > the USA isn't Germany)
> >
>
> Well, let's say you're right for a moment.  If women would CHOOSE all
> those things, you see as being negative, instead of being married to a
> sexist, then the world is still a good place.

Yeah, what's so bad about being married to a sexist?  Lessee:

I happily paid for my wife's meals and held open her doors.
She has a provider who takes care of her and thinks about
her needs.  When she's unreasonable and irrational,
I brush it off rather than taking her seriously and
undermining our relationship.

In other words, my "sexist" relationship works.
Ultimately, Fraulein Dutchland and her buddies have
to pray for all those socialist goodies because they
can't find a real husband to take care of them
so they pray for the state to rescue them.

Good luck to 'em.  They'll need it.

> There's some kind of
> club in southern CA (I had to smile) called THE RED HAT CLUB.
> Apparently, it is comprised of retired women who wear purple clothing
> and red hats.  They travel together, dine together, etc.

Good for them!  So 30 something career women can learn how to live
like old women.

I was just thinking it would have been kind of funny
to give career women who were being nasty on a date a
red hat as a gift and when they asked why, tell them
about this club and how they can be VERY longtime members. :-)

> > Like I said, it's one Patriarchal or Socialist hand
> > giving and the other hand taking something back.
>
> I'm not adverse to being a compassionate capitalist, Mark.

Sure.  Young career women can give lots of money in federal taxes
for social security.  I understand it's the hardest for
singles...

> In thinking
> about those women in the Red Hat Club, they have worked for a living in
> a capitalist society, and have paid taxes, and are now enjoying the
> fruits of their labors.  In the same sense, we have some limited social
> programs designed to be a safety net.  There is not one western society
> that does not employ some degree of socialism.

And there's not one western society that doesn't have a single
case of mad cow disease.  So are you saying then that
socialism and mad cow disease is necessary for our
society's existance? :-)

In other words, you're using a philosphical fallcy known
as a argument of association.   Let's try this:
Every western society that has introduced socialism
has seen their cities rot and decay as single mother
Matriarchal households have shot the crime rate up.
Could we compare socialism them to a parasite?
If all dogs 100 years ago had fleas, would that make
the case then that a healthy dog must have fleas?

>  That's what prevents
> the poor from killing the rich.

Bread and circuses.

I've heard this before and observed that paying a
family on the edge of physical violence to make MORE
kids doesn't seem like a good idea.

Question: Have the inner cities of the US become
more or less violent as the poor collected welfare?

> Of course, if we swing too far in one
> direction or the other, and the middle class is lost, becomming the
> poor, all bets are off.
> :-)

Oh yeah, you're trying to help build the case that
psuedo moderate socialists are trying to preserve
the middle class.  Yeah, sure.  The same middle class
that fleed for the suburbs, voted republican, and
were called "stupid" for daring to exercise their
constituional rights as they chose?

Yeah, ok.

> > but I don't see how it applies here.  The child of a single parent
> would > likely have been treated the same way as the child of the
> married parents.
> >
> > So does this mean that the children of single mothers are then
> genetically inferior if environment cannot explain their higher crime
> rates?
>
> I don't see what genetics has to do with it.

Neither do I.  But the products of single mother homes
do have higher crime rates, yes?  And these are mostly
Matriarchal headed homes, yes?

> I mean if a single mother
> had a child with Jesus, who was cruicified prior to marriage, would
> that make his child genetically inferior?  :-)

Oh, I see you're trying to allude to the DaVinci code.

Hmmm, in that case if we would put it in terms today:
The mother in this case is single only because

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100