ABC news

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
P. Tierney wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

Does that mean that if I clearly (I didn't always say as
much) judged the "act" asbeing bad instead of the person
doing it, you would've refrained from comment?

No. I probably still would have debated the
notion that it is inherently bad to hire a consultant
to help your baby sleep through the night. However,
the comment would have been much less offensive and
irritating to me if it hadn't be couched as a "sickening"
act.

It was probably hyperbole (quote from a friend, in fact),
but you can replace it with a lesser term, or just be offended
and irritated. Either way.

Well, it does get a tad confusing when I can
substitute words for what you've written and when I
can't, you know ;-)

Eh, I'm just trying to move things along...

Of course it isn't anyone's "job". But I find it
very difficult to believe that one can see an action that
they deplore and not make any conclusions. I don't
need to walk in a child abusers shoes, for example,
to judge that acts of abuse are wrong, and that
abusers are bad parents.

That's why I brought up the original comment
that there are obviously some bad parents out there,
as evidenced by the fact that an institution whose
job it is to learn the whole story and render an
impartial judgement determines that some folks are
bad enough parents that their parental rights ought
to be terminated. I, however, do not generally have
access to all the information,

I don't know what, in *any* situations, appropriately
encompasses "all of the information", and then, whether or
not you'd would still cross the line between having an
opinion about an act and making any judgement whatsoever
about the person doing that act.

Me neither, necessarily. The courts have standards
for such things. I figure, for the most part it's none of
my business.

Which answers my question, from a few posts back,
that if you witnessed Bad Parenting Act X, you wouldn't
judge it at all, but disregard it as being none of your business.
So it is with you.

and so I attempt to
refrain from judgement of individuals who may or may
not be guilty of what they are accused of.

Part of this, I now realize, is something of a fluid
definition on this thread, on defining "what they are
accused of". In some instances, it's easy. If I witness a
light turn red and see a car from 50 feet past the line
run that light, then I have no problem in confidently
judging that person ran the red light. But I cannot, unless
I am a textualist, judge whether or not that person was
wrong in doing so without more information.

Precisely.

Anyway, when judging an individual select instance
of Bad Parenting Act X, some (such as me, without
shame) can *witness* it and make a judgement (one
definition being: " the process of forming an opinion or
evaluation by discerning and comparing about that act).
Others, who aren't judgemental, only have opinions about
it, and wouldn't judge unless receiving more information,
or perhaps are told by an authority (the courts, CPS) to
make any such judgements. So it seems.

What I object to is the transition from
having an opinion about a particular act or behavior
to making an assumption about someone's character.

Objection understood. If I witness Bad Parenting
Act X, I very well might make an assumption about
that person's character depending on the situation.
And you wouldn't.


In other words, I have no objection to your saying
that you don't see the point in anyone hiring help
to get their kid to sleep, nor in your saying that
you wouldn't choose to spend your money that way,
nor that you don't think it's appropriate to attempt
to get a three month old to sleep through the night.
I may or may not agree with those statements, but
I think you have a perfect right to hold those opinions
and argue those positions. I find it offensive to
make the leap to saying that parents who make that
choice are "sickening," or bad parents, or people
who don't care about their kids and shouldn't have
had them if they couldn't be bothered to parent
(by your definition of parenting). Tone it down
or not, it appears that you've been arguing more
of the latter than the former.

Offense is understood.


P. Tierney

P. Tierney wrote:

Which answers my question, from a few posts back,
that if you witnessed Bad Parenting Act X, you wouldn't
judge it at all, but disregard it as being none of your business.
So it is with you.

I might think I don't like the look of that
behavior, or I don't understand why they'd do that,
or I'd better make a mental note not to do that, or
I wonder why they did that, or whatever. I would like
to think I'd refrain from thinking, "there goes a
crappy parent" based on such a limited understanding
of the situation. So yeah, barring a dangerous
situation, it's not my business. I also think it's
my obligation not to make assumptions when I don't
have full information. That makes several reasons
I don't think I ought to run around and tell everyone
else what a terrible parent I saw that day. Been
there, done that, had to eat my words. Not keen
on repeating that sort of situation.

Best iwshes,
Ericka

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
P. Tierney wrote:

Which answers my question, from a few posts back,
that if you witnessed Bad Parenting Act X, you wouldn't
judge it at all, but disregard it as being none of your business.
So it is with you.

I might think I don't like the look of that
behavior, or I don't understand why they'd do that,
or I'd better make a mental note not to do that, or
I wonder why they did that, or whatever. I would like
to think I'd refrain from thinking, "there goes a
crappy parent" based on such a limited understanding
of the situation. So yeah, barring a dangerous
situation, it's not my business.

Oh, I prefer refraining too, but there are times.
We all have a line, I think. Ours in in different places.


P. Tierney

Barbara Bomberger wrote:

My husband put it..."Little babies eat, sleep and poop. If you're not
with them when they eat, sleep, and poop, then you're not with them very
much."


And how much was your husband with said child when he ate, slept and
pooped.

Sorry, I realize this is heading in a differnet direction

Given that he works from home, so we share childcare on a daily basis,
and we co-sleep, and he takes care of them whenever I'm out on an
ambulance run...pretty frequently.

Michelle
Flutist

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:41:44 -0700, "Michelle J. Haines"
wrote:

Barbara Bomberger wrote:

My husband put it..."Little babies eat, sleep and poop. If you're not
with them when they eat, sleep, and poop, then you're not with them very
much."


And how much was your husband with said child when he ate, slept and
pooped.

Sorry, I realize this is heading in a differnet direction

Given that he works from home, so we share childcare on a daily basis,
and we co-sleep, and he takes care of them whenever I'm out on an
ambulance run...pretty frequently.

Michelle
Flutist

Good Deal!!!!!

but in fact many fathers (or primary wage earners) also bond with
their children while not being there for every moment of pooping,
sleeping, or cuddling.

Barbara Bomberger wrote:

but in fact many fathers (or primary wage earners) also bond with
their children while not being there for every moment of pooping,
sleeping, or cuddling.

No where did I state that the child would never bond to the child, nor
did I say they have to be there every second. In fact, my husband also
refers to the first nine months as the "grubworm" stage, and regularly
laments that he's just not as good as Mommy during that stage, because
he doesn't have milk on tap or smell the same. There are always thing
that affect how much a baby bonds to someone or not, but since I do
spend more time with them when they're small infants, when they are
upset, they want me, not him. As they get older, it evens out more.
It's a trade-off from the breastfeeding. No doubt if we evenly split
bottle-feeding, it would balance bonding. But the benefits of the
breastfeeding outweigh that.

Michelle
Flutist

sl"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
very real concerns there. At the same time, even if
I don't think that most babies can be sleeping 12 hours
a night by 3 months without potentially compromising
nutrition or breastfeeding,

I don't know about most babies, but but both of mine slept through the night
naturally and gained just fine.

"toypup" wrote:

sl"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
very real concerns there. At the same time, even if
I don't think that most babies can be sleeping 12 hours
a night by 3 months without potentially compromising
nutrition or breastfeeding,

I don't know about most babies, but but both of mine slept through the night
naturally and gained just fine.

The same for me.

grandma Rosalie