Hyerdahl wrote:
> 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.

"May have few options".

Why does a child run around with scissors?  Why, because he
has nothing else better to do! :-)

Gee, the mother could maybe go to a church, social worker,
or even policeman and ask him for help to protect her
child.  Naaaah.

> 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.

Indeed.  You get around to the non-women and children in a moment
when you:

> And let's not forget, that for
> every neonate in need of help there is also a father...out
> there...somewhere.....

need a scapegoat!  Indeed!  Maybe if men threatened to kill
neonates, or infants more often, they might be able to
get cut a break.

> So, you're still not just protecting women.
> Que sera...sera...

If mommy dearest primary-caregiver is caught trying to
killer her 'neonate', she goes to jail alone.  The law can't
hold the man co-responsible for merely helping to conceive
the child.

Ask a lawyer at the law office where you used to work if you
don't believe me.

>   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. :-)

The new father... out there... somewhere... isn't the one
killing neonates.   Neither am I.

If you're implying that mother wouldn't be so likely
to kill her own infant if the father was there with
his wallet open with no questions asked, then I can
point out that the "ability" to gestate children
into poverty isn't much of an ability.  This may explain
why Patriarchy's tend to exist: people with abilities
tend to be in charge.

Irregardless, is there a good reason to kill an infant because
a person is in a difficult situation?  Hmmm, if you
had financial problems, would you have killed your babies?

> So that you want to
> blame all womenkind is really your problem.

Er, pot meet kettle: You seek to spread around blame for
individual women's murderous deeds to fathers "...somewhere..."
and to society for somehow not making life cozy for
such women.

And it's not "my" problem: I don't murder infants.

> > > > > > 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.

Just as adults die as pedestrians in car accidents.  Non-sequitur.
The issue is whether pedestrians playing in traffic
for fun and winding up getting killed are to be regarded
as victims as much as someone walking across the street
on a crosswalk with the permission of a light.

> > > 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.

The depends upon the purpose of the door display: To demonstrate
how a door would open and close versus being
deliberately knocked over.

> > At the risk of undermining my own case, :-), I'll mention
> > that I was kind of disgusted by HD on Donald Trump's
> > The Apprentice 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!

In recent years, yes.  At the old apartment building where I lived,
I remember seeing a child running around the edge of the pool
where all it would have taken was for a slight misstep for the kid
to have a serious accident all while the parent just looked on.
Amazing.

In older, more Patriarchal times, kids were better behaved.

> 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.

HAHAHAHA! I doubt you see too many of these people in your
neck of the woods. :-)

> > 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.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense: When I think of doors, I think
cement sacks.  That's logical.

> > 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.

Actually, in this particular court case, the moochers were dual parent.

Even so, it's your argument that a specially abled man would
be likely to try to pull down displays while innocently
buying cement, not mine.  Do try to keep up.

FYI: I have a general gripe about parents who indulge their kids
and allow them to run rampant and cannot seem to find a way
to discipline them.  I suspect bluesmama and I are going to
have a discussion soon (friendly, I want her input on this.)

A lot of this may be due to our culture and not just feminism:
The media is full of what I would consider hyperactive messages
for children with children running around screaming and
being "themselves" and not showing restraint.  They then
go to public school and see other kids acting like little
monsters so the parents may be a bit overwhelmed.

> > >  Are you now suggesting that
> > > mentally challenged people shouldn't be expected to enter HD?
> >
> > Er, no.
> >
> Oh. good.  :-)

It's not good or bad.  I'm merely stating a position that's
in no way contradictory with what I said.  Heck, I'll even
say children should be free to enter HD provided they are
VERY strictly supervised.

> > 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.

So it's black-and-white to say that people should enter
facilities but also act in a safe manner for their benefit
as well as the benefit of others.  Yeah, I'm a real extremist...

> 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.

So what?  If someone has destructive tendencies, they should
be supervised whether they can read a list or not.
YOUR argument was based upon equating destructive children
to mentally handicapped people, not mine.

> > > 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,

This isn't rocket science here!  If someone brings kids
or mentally challenged adults who may pose a harm to themselves
or others in their environment, they should be looked after.
It's not terribly difficult.  Most people do this all the time
without thinking about it.  No magic involved.

> but by that moment in time, you will be
> dead, and _god_ will be a white male Republican using a whip on his
> chattel.  :-)

It's interesting timing as the Pope just passed away
and the television is full of tributes to him.
Just another figure in a montage of white male leaders who
have created world peace, took huge risks, and
made the world a better place.

There aren't too many career women heroes because they're
too busy either crying victim or blowing mad money or
demanding the state protect them from killing their
own infants, er, "neonates".   It's almost flattering that
you should always look to blame a man... somewhere for
all of women's problems since they are so dependant upon us.

> > >(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.

Safe from whom?  I've asked that question a dozen times.
You know what the answer is!

> > > 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.  :-)

You used to work as a receptionist in a law office, you know
what I'm talking about. :-)

The legal team for this case probably consisted of at least
two lawyers who then spent several thousands on a team of court
specialists such as psychologists, doctors, etc.  These guys
charge at least 10 grand each for their time.

I would venture to argue that the legal team lost money
and certainly time.

> >(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".

Not at all.  Some of her ideas that don't agree with mine are
quite valid.  Sometimes, they are based upon emotion.

> Why have a wife who's an
> equal partner when you can simply marry a child.  :-)

Oh, a number of reasons!  Nice of you to ask!

Succe$$ful women usually have attitude problems about relationships
in general and are extremely demanding.  Men don't necessarily
want the same pressures they have at work to be waiting
for them when they get home.  Rather than a partner, the
typical career woman is a competitor.

I talked with men who are very liberal in political ideology
and even they were disgusted with career women: They
felt that they had gotten nothing when it came to seriously
pursuing such women.  If they were merely the "equal"
of such women, the women didn't give them much respect.
That's what THEY told me!

> 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.  :-)

Unfortunately, I doubt that a teenager could elicit the
sympathy of a jury after pulling a door display down on
them for fun and profit.

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