Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> 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.

Not really, Mark.  The laws are there to prevent harm to neonates as
well as a newly delivered mother who may have few options.  And women
are indeed part of society; in fact, they are just over 51% of society.
 But neonates and their newly delivered mothers are a very small
subsections of those needing help.  And let's not forget, that for
every neonate in need of help there is also a father...out
there...somewhere.....  So, you're still not just protecting women.
Que sera...sera...

  I don't "pick" and choose to abandon babies in dumpsters resulting
> in their death, that's the "primary parent"'s choice.

Again, a newly delivered mother not having options has just as much to
do with a new father...out there...somewhere. :-)  So that you want to
blame all womenkind is really your problem.

>
> > > > > 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!

Children die as pedestrians in car accidents every day, Mark, and that
is the children of married as well as single parents.

> > 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.

Actually, common sense would tell me that.  If children come into
stores and a door is not attached sufficiently, that would be entirely
possible.
>
> 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.
>
:-)  Yeah, I don't like to go to a grown up place and see kids either.
:-)
Little brats!  But I have to be honest here, the kids who are the
rudest are actually the kids from LARGE two parent homes.  Those fundy
parents don't have enough parent per kid.  And they are brats.

> 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? :-)

Sure.  If the doors were near the cement sacks....entirely plausible.
>
> 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.

He may not be THAT special, Mark.  You just like to attack the children
of single female headed homes.  I'm clarifying things for you.
>
> >  Are you now suggesting that
> > mentally challenged people shouldn't be expected to enter HD?
>
> Er, no.
>
Oh. good.  :-)

> 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.

Mark, your world is very black and white.  I worked for an organization
that hired handicapped people who were not terribly good at making
their own choices, but were good at doing mudane tasks like shopping
for things on a list.  :-)  They had no guardians.

>
> > 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.

Mark, someday you can wave your magic wand and have your life as
organized as you would like, but by that moment in time, you will be
dead, and _god_ will be a white male Republican using a whip on his
chattel.  :-)

>
> >(edit)
>  >
>  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. :-)

Well, you're the one who used the "scissors" argument regarding single
women who use safe harbors for neonates.
>
> > 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. :-)

So you say.  :-)
>
>(edit
> > >
> > 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.

IOW, your wife is a child.  Her ideas that don't agree with yours
simply become "unreasonable and irrational".  Why have a wife who's an
equal partner when you can simply marry a child.  :-)  Of course, I
find it interesting that men like you don't understand that eventually
children do grow up, and when they do, they're more like teenagers who
realize that daddy can't control them.  :-)
>
> In other words, my "sexist" relationship works.

Sure, for now it may just.  :-)


(edit)
>
 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?

>From what I've observed, having a father in the home doesn't
necessarily make it a patriarchal home, tho.  And environment DOES
explain the high crimes rates, mostly as a result of poverty and
paternal abandonment rather than single moms.
>
> 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
> her boyfriend, a religious activist, was killed
> before a marriage could take place.
>
> Of course, this is assuming that a firestation is nearby
> lest her (and other single moms) not kill the child
> because nobody stopped her from doing so.  (And if a HD
> was around then, leaving the kid unsupervised to
> wreak havoc and injure himself.)

Apparently, the child, if there was one, lived on ...as many children
do.
Poor Mark envisions a world where women are rushing out to leave their
new borns in garbage dumps.  What he's complaining about is a microcosm
especially when compared to men who kill  kids.  Hmmmmm

>
> regards,
> Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/3/05 9:00:37 PM ---