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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Prime example of why I hate other parents...
On 12 Aug 2006 21:57:57 -0700, "L." wrote:
Barbara wrote: Yes, and I'll also bet that both they and their parents were glad that there was a phone easily accessible so that they could summon medical attention. Of course I'm sure everything would have been just fine if they'd had to walk several blocks to locate a pay phone, or had to explain their need for a phone to a gatekeeper who could determine whether or not it really was an emergency. Barbara Just ignore her. She's just being her usual idio,t ****y self and proving the the world once again that she has no reading comprehension skills. No one ever said a cell phone would prevent an incident. But the truth is, if older children have cell phones, the cell phone may enable them to call for help and save their lives. One can bleed to death in a matter of minutes (even from a dog attack) and access to a cell phone can be critical in saving a life. -L. You're so charming. Can nobody even take a freakin' joke? Damn. Nan |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Prime example of why I hate other parents...
"L." wrote in message oups.com... Barbara wrote: Yes, and I'll also bet that both they and their parents were glad that there was a phone easily accessible so that they could summon medical attention. Of course I'm sure everything would have been just fine if they'd had to walk several blocks to locate a pay phone, or had to explain their need for a phone to a gatekeeper who could determine whether or not it really was an emergency. Barbara Just ignore her. She's just being her usual idio,t ****y self and proving the the world once again that she has no reading comprehension skills. It's funny you say that ..... lol No one ever said a cell phone would prevent an incident. But the truth is, if older children have cell phones, the cell phone may enable them to call for help and save their lives. One can bleed to death in a matter of minutes (even from a dog attack) and access to a cell phone can be critical in saving a life. -L. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Prime example of why I hate other parents...
"L." wrote in message
oups.com... Barbara wrote: How absurd. From just a 2 minute web search: Let me make something else abundantly clear. The parents' negligence in no way absolves the dog owners' responsibility. if a parent were negligent, how does that make the dog/its owner responsible? or is the parent entirely responsible due to "negligence"? but if the owner is entirely responsible as you've also said, how can the parent have been negligent? if the two parties (e.g. provocative, teasing child and fear-aggressive dog) have _both_ had a part in the situation, surely that means they're both responsible for the situation, therefore the parent isn't negligent _nor_ the owner responsible for the deed...? (did you think this through at all or were you just having another rant?) The animals should be destroyed and the owners (I use this word because they definitely are not "guardians") should be charged with assault and attempted murder, in cases where a known biter is allowed to bit again. heh. so... you don't know much about kids or parents OR animals, eh? :-) fortunately, in the real world, the authorities generally try to determine what actually happened before anyone gets the needle. admittedly it leaves less scope for hating random humans (or animals) on usenet, but there you have it, we do what we can. Any person who owns a biting dog has the responsibility to keep the animal under control, away from others *and* muzzled. -L. god help us all, i agree with you there, rare though a recidivist biting dog statistically is. (although after the dog's been put down & the humans jailed for assault/attempted murder(!) in lyn's brave new world, i'm not sure who would be keeping, controlling and muzzling what....) kylie |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Prime example of why I hate other parents...
In article .com, L. says...
Barbara wrote: Yes, and I'll also bet that both they and their parents were glad that there was a phone easily accessible so that they could summon medical attention. Of course I'm sure everything would have been just fine if they'd had to walk several blocks to locate a pay phone, or had to explain their need for a phone to a gatekeeper who could determine whether or not it really was an emergency. Barbara Just ignore her. She's just being her usual idio,t ****y self and proving the the world once again that she has no reading comprehension skills. No one ever said a cell phone would prevent an incident. :::WHHHhhhoooooooOSH:: -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Prime example of why I hate other parents...
L. wrote: Barbara wrote: Where were her parents? My kid sure as hell doesn't sit outside unattended, especially in front of a home where a known vicious dog lives. "Neighbors said it wasn't the first time the dog has been violent." So in other words, the parents simply don't give a **** about the kid and let her hang around a home where there is a pitbull known to bite humans. It's really elementary, Babs. Snip Where were the parents? The Grandparents did notuing to stop the attack. The parents knew there was a vicious rotty living NEXTDOOR, yet allow the children outside with no means of defense. Natural selection at work. Actually, in this case, I think you are being unfair - if you had read the stories, you would realize that in neither case was the child unattended. The girl's aunt was there with the little girl, and the grandparents were with the boy - and not only did they fight the dog off, but they dragged the little boy inside, in an attempt to get him away from the dog, and the dog lunged inside and continued attacking. There is also no information in either article what the parents could or should have known about the dogs ahead of time. You cannot eliminate all risk from a child's life. Most parents do what they can to take reasonable precautions. Blaming a parent or guardian for being somewhere at the wrong time as in the cases above, is a bit akin to blaming the parents of a child (who was in a properly-installed child-safety seat) killed in a car accident, for putting that child in a car in the first place. Cathy Weeks |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Prime example of why I hate other parents...
0tterbot wrote: Let me make something else abundantly clear. The parents' negligence in no way absolves the dog owners' responsibility. if a parent were negligent, how does that make the dog/its owner responsible? or is the parent entirely responsible due to "negligence"? but if the owner is entirely responsible as you've also said, how can the parent have been negligent? if the two parties (e.g. provocative, teasing child and fear-aggressive dog) have _both_ had a part in the situation, surely that means they're both responsible for the situation, therefore the parent isn't negligent _nor_ the owner responsible for the deed...? (did you think this through at all or were you just having another rant?) Do I really need to spell it out for you? Are you seriously that daft? The free dictionary.com: Noun 1. culpable negligence - (law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences) They're both culpable. The dog owner is legally and criminally *liable* for the actions of the dog. The animals should be destroyed and the owners (I use this word because they definitely are not "guardians") should be charged with assault and attempted murder, in cases where a known biter is allowed to bit again. heh. so... you don't know much about kids or parents OR animals, eh? :-) fortunately, in the real world, the authorities generally try to determine what actually happened before anyone gets the needle. admittedly it leaves less scope for hating random humans (or animals) on usenet, but there you have it, we do what we can. *Any* dog that attacks like these dogs attacked needs the be put down.... I suppose you think Bane in the SF dog mauling case should have been spared, as well? Any person who owns a biting dog has the responsibility to keep the animal under control, away from others *and* muzzled. -L. god help us all, i agree with you there, rare though a recidivist biting dog statistically is. (although after the dog's been put down & the humans jailed for assault/attempted murder(!) IMO, anyone who harbors a known biter without taking FULL precaution that the animal cannot attack again is guilty of attempted murder when that dog attacks a child. -L. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Prime example of why I hate other parents...
Cathy Weeks wrote: Actually, in this case, I think you are being unfair - if you had read the stories, you would realize that in neither case was the child unattended. The girl's aunt was there with the little girl, ....at a home where a vicious Pit Bull was known to live. If my sister wants to take my toddler to a home where a known vicious Pit Bull lives, the answer would be "NO". Actually I wouldn't let her take him to any home where a Pit Bull lives. (Not that I think the breed is inherently bad - I simply have absolutely no idea if the dog is friendly or not.) If the parent didn't know there was a vicious dog at the home, she should have. My kid goes no where unless I know who and what is in the home - and that includes people, animals and guns. If the Aunt took the child there without the parent's permision, then the Aunt is culpable. and the grandparents were with the boy - and not only did they fight the dog off, but they dragged the little boy inside, in an attempt to get him away from the dog, and the dog lunged inside and continued attacking. There is also no information in either article what the parents could or should have known about the dogs ahead of time. There were three dogs who lived in the house of the neighbor - and were kept in a fenced yard. Do you seriously think that these people didn't know their neighbors had three dogs, including a rotty? The dog was known in the neighborhood for killing other animals, so it obviously had been rogue on more than one occasion. If you live in a neighborhood where rogue dogs roam - especially breeds that are known to be agressive - would you NOT take precautions when walking in said neighborhood? You cannot eliminate all risk from a child's life. Most parents do what they can to take reasonable precautions. Blaming a parent or guardian for being somewhere at the wrong time **** just "doesn't happen". This was no accident. It was an *easily* forseeable incident. as in the cases above, is a bit akin to blaming the parents of a child (who was in a properly-installed child-safety seat) killed in a car accident, for putting that child in a car in the first place. But that's just it - there was no figurative "car seat" used in either of these cases. -L. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Prime example of why I hate other parents...
0tterbot wrote: now it's "like these dogs attacked" rather than attacks in general? well, fair enough! there are entirely different situations where dogs (or other animals) attack humans (or other animals). exactly. We are talking about *repeat* biters, no? IMO, anyone who harbors a known biter without taking FULL precaution that the animal cannot attack again is guilty of attempted murder when that dog attacks a child. or an adult, one assumes. at least for most of we adult-likers. however, to get back to the first theme, there are different types of "known biters". hence my point. one bite does not a "biter" make, unless one knows exactly what happened. One bite does make a "biter" - in terms of the law as I have encountered it. Repeat bites makes for a dead dog, and a guilty owner, AFAIC. -L. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Prime example of why I hate other parents...
"L." wrote in message
ups.com... 0tterbot wrote: now it's "like these dogs attacked" rather than attacks in general? well, fair enough! there are entirely different situations where dogs (or other animals) attack humans (or other animals). exactly. We are talking about *repeat* biters, no? well, perhaps, but not necessarily. with "like these dogs attacked" it's more about dogs forming into a pack & attacking from aggression, rather than anything else. on the other hand, a dog which "attacked" someone because that person was frightening, hurting or torturing them (i.e. it didn't attack, it simply defended itself) is _entirely_ a different case. to label a dog which bit in self-defence "a biter" pure & simple is _completely_ unreasonable. so to say that all "biters" should necessarily be put down &/or its owners charged is a common thing for people who don't know dogs (which unfortunately includes some dog owners) to say. but it doesn't make it fair, nor really correct either. the _massive_ majority of dogs will never bite anyone, ever. of those that do (or have) there can be a variety of reasons for why that happened, so making blanket statements that biters should be put down & their owners charged is really quite unnecessary, and rather silly. still, people do say it. and some dogs really should be put down for their own sake as well as everyone else's, i don't dispute that (i really don't think extremely fear-aggressive or extremely psychologically disturbed dogs have a quality of life that is worth living, for example). but it's not as simple as "it bit! kill it!" because really, that's too much like the unfortunate meerkats, isn't it? when something happens such as a small child being bitten when nobody can really determine exactly what happened, & such behaviour is entirely out of character for the dog, i'd give the dog the benefit of the doubt - because we all know what small kids can be like with animals. One bite does make a "biter" - in terms of the law as I have encountered it. shrug we have different laws. Repeat bites makes for a dead dog, and a guilty owner, AFAIC. well, that's your black-and-white view i suppose. i'm not into that sort of thing. kylie |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Prime example of why I hate other parents...
I have to say I understand both sides of the children in restaurants arguement. I have five kids and we regularly eat in restaurants with them all. ten years ago we had just the four all under 8 and we still took them to restaurants both family and regular restaurants and sometimes it was ok other it was horrible and we left. Its not so hit and miss now the girls are 18, 15, 14, 11, and nearly 3. But never did we forget that we were the adults at the table and not at a family 'do' where everyone in the room had a connection and tolerance to bad behaviour. Every person eating in any situation have a right not to be as disturbed as far as possible, but in return should show tolerance to the families trying to enforce good behaviour from unruly children. I have seen families showing manners I have felt were disgusting but also thought those kids can't learn better restaurant manners without going out to eat. Tolerance is a great word for this topic everyone one of us could cite a story of bad behaviour in this type of situation and not just from our own children but other families as well. I personally don't agree with young family areas within restaurants for several reasons, the turnover of tables is so high in these areas the cleaning is very much a quick wipe over and not I would say to a high standard (clean table messy floor is not my idea of fun) but also I believe that children can learn so much from circumstances and enviroment that eating in normal areas or 'posher' restaurants is a key part of table manner teaching and social graces. I think as parents we can be blinkered to how our famillies look when out in public i look at my children and on the whole they look to me well behaved with good manners but that is by my standards other people may see them as brats with manners of swine. While I think my view is the only one that really counts I do try to see my world in the way others do. When I look in so to speak at my family we are quite loud, not screaming but boystrus (hope thats spelt right) we debate and laugh and generally enjoy our company but how many others have we disturbed by just being ourselves???? and just for the record my child would have been punished badly for causing those animals to die.........consequences of actions is a key phrase in my life. They also would have had the shots to learn a major life lesson as well as for medical reasons. Sharon mum to 5 daughters UK |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Foster parents need support from the state | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 3 | June 18th 06 07:39 AM |
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case | Fern5827 | Spanking | 8 | October 4th 05 03:43 AM |
New Research: Negative effects of spanking | Chris | Spanking | 14 | June 8th 04 07:01 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |