A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Make a stupid mistake & MD prohibits your seeing son, lest SUPERVISED



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 29th 03, 02:08 AM
Roger Schlafly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Make a stupid mistake & MD prohibits your seeing son, lest SUPERVISED

"JG" wrote
Tell you what, Jeff. Go ahead and draw up a list of *every*thing that a
child does, or could *potentially* do, or that could *conceivably"*
happen during his/her childhood and rate each item from 1-10 based on
how "dangerous" you perceive it to be. ("Sleeping face up," for
example, would be a "1"; "Sleeping face down" maybe a "2"; "Gun in the
house, unloaded and properly stored" perhaps also a "2"; "Gun in the
house, loaded, possibly accessible (to a really adventurous, agile kid)"
perhaps a "9"; "Gun in house, loaded, easily accessible" a "10";
"Playing ball next to a busy road" perhaps an "8"; "Running with
scissors" maybe a "6"... When you're done (10, 20 years?), attach an
appropriate penalty to each number, with "serious" penalties (i.e.,
something other than simply a "slap on the wrist" warning) to, say, "6"
and above. Next, submit the list to your state legislator and ask
him/her to introduce it as a bill during the next legislative session.
(Next, wait for the straight jacket-bearing guys in the white shirts to
show up at your door. g)


You are giving him ideas! g Here in California, we already have plenty
of people who think that way. We have to have kids in car seats until
age 6, helmets on kids riding bikes and other activities, etc. We just
narrowly avoided a law against (non-hands-free) car phones, but that
was probably only because of the state budget crisis in which Democrats
had held up the required annual budget in order to attempt to raise taxes
to increase welfare payments. No doubt the busybody legislators will be
back passing nanny laws.

There are homeschoolers who think that sending a kid to school is
an unnecessary risk. Others object to swimming pools, eating meat,
celebrating Halloween, pets, stairs, TV, hot dogs, soda, etc. If you
make it a crime for a parent to allow a one-in-a-million risk to the
kids, then at least 99% of all parents will be felons.


  #12  
Old July 29th 03, 02:50 AM
Jeff Utz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Make a stupid mistake & MD prohibits your seeing son, lest SUPERVISED


"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"JG" wrote
Tell you what, Jeff. Go ahead and draw up a list of *every*thing that a
child does, or could *potentially* do, or that could *conceivably"*
happen during his/her childhood and rate each item from 1-10 based on
how "dangerous" you perceive it to be. ("Sleeping face up," for
example, would be a "1"; "Sleeping face down" maybe a "2"; "Gun in the
house, unloaded and properly stored" perhaps also a "2"; "Gun in the
house, loaded, possibly accessible (to a really adventurous, agile kid)"
perhaps a "9"; "Gun in house, loaded, easily accessible" a "10";
"Playing ball next to a busy road" perhaps an "8"; "Running with
scissors" maybe a "6"... When you're done (10, 20 years?), attach an
appropriate penalty to each number, with "serious" penalties (i.e.,
something other than simply a "slap on the wrist" warning) to, say, "6"
and above. Next, submit the list to your state legislator and ask
him/her to introduce it as a bill during the next legislative session.
(Next, wait for the straight jacket-bearing guys in the white shirts to
show up at your door. g)


You are giving him ideas! g Here in California, we already have plenty
of people who think that way. We have to have kids in car seats until
age 6, helmets on kids riding bikes and other activities, etc.


Good!

We just
narrowly avoided a law against (non-hands-free) car phones, but that
was probably only because of the state budget crisis in which Democrats
had held up the required annual budget in order to attempt to raise taxes
to increase welfare payments.


And pay for schools and other mandates. Too bad about not getting that law
not allowing cell phones.

No doubt the busybody legislators will be
back passing nanny laws.


Good. I don't want to get in a crash caused by some guy not paying attention
because he is talking on the cell phone.

There are homeschoolers who think that sending a kid to school is
an unnecessary risk. Others object to swimming pools, eating meat,
celebrating Halloween, pets, stairs, TV, hot dogs, soda, etc. If you
make it a crime for a parent to allow a one-in-a-million risk to the
kids, then at least 99% of all parents will be felons.


There are certain risks that are reasonable. Locking a kid in a trunk, IMHO,
is not reasonable.

Unless you and JG have something new to add to the discussion, I will not be
posting in it again.

Jeff


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
| Most families *at risk* w CPS' assessment tools broad, vague Kane General 13 February 20th 04 07:02 PM
Another child killed in kincare Kane General 39 February 12th 04 07:55 PM
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
And again he strikes........ Doan strikes ...... again! was Kids should work... Kane General 2 December 6th 03 04:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.