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.

>
> 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?

>
> > > 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.
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.
>
> 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.  Are you now suggesting that
mentally challenged people shouldn't be expected to enter HD?  What
about supervised children who are there buying supplies for a club
house?
Hmmmmmm   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.

> 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?

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

> > > 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.
>
> > > 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.  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.  :-)  It's the same with you.  You'd
prefer to see the world in terms of women who have hurt you.  I would
think that now that you're allegedly married, that you'd want a fresh
start with a new vision.


> 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.  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.

> 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.  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.  That's what prevents
the poor from killing the rich.  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.
:-)
>
> 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.  I mean if a single mother
had a child with Jesus, who was cruicified prior to marriage, would
that make his child genetically inferior?  :-)


>
> regards,
> Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/2/05 4:48:14 PM ---