http://terranrich.easyjournal.com/
Read the above journal entry and you'll see what I mean. I mean, seriously, some parents just shock me sometimes. Anybody got any stories of witnessing similar occurrences?
these kind of people make me sick. a similar thing happened to me. a kid had fallen over in the street and , being the kindly upstanding member of the community i am, rushed over to help. the mother was chatting away t one of her moronic friends so i helped him up. he cant have been more than 4. i held his hand and took him back to his mother. no tanks or notice she just gave me this dusgusted look and shoved the kid into a pram. i dont know how these people even notice that they're pregnant
These kind of people should be put together and shot. Seriously. That's sick. I feel sorry for the children of these kind of people.... :-\
Well, I can't speak for the exact circumstances of Rich and Zooty's anecdotes, but let me offer some possible mitigation, from someone with actual experience.
I first went to the local Church's parent-and-toddler group when Alba was less than 18 months old. She had been walking since before she was one, but couldn't do stairs. At the group they had a big wooden slide with quite big gaps between the stairs. Alba loved slides when we have been to playparks before, but I always lifted her onto the slide rather than let her climb up the big steps. Alba seemed keen to go on the slide so with my hands about 2mm away from holding her all the way, she managed to pull herself up the steps and then went down the slide happily. Later the same morning, I turned to look at something else for a couple of second. In the meantime Alba had got herself up on top of the slide and was on her way down. She must have climbed the steps all by herself. In fact, she has never fallen off the slide. Since then , she has managed to climb vertical ladders on slides with rungs about half her whole height apart. So a 4-year-old should be pretty capable with ladders by then, and also pretty capable to pick themselves up after a fall. OK, about the first 100 times your child falls over you run and pick them up straightaway, but as they get older they don't want you to help. So you only go to them if they start crying for you.
On the other hand, some parents do just sit at these things and have a chat with their firends and don't play with their kids at all. But that doesn't make them bad parents, either, just maybe a bit less good, and spekaing for myself I'm usually pretty knackered to go runnign after her, but run I do. Maybe its not having a proper nights sleep in 2 years that does it...?
Well, in my case, it wasn't that the parents weren't playing with their kid, it was that they were ignoring him, letting him roam around the store. The thing with my store is that there are forklifts, machines, ladders, and plenty of things that can kill a kid. We've had cases of children sitting down on the mechanism of a rolling ladder that locks it down so it won't roll, chopping off all of one girl's fingers. And with machines, we can't always see if a kid is running around, and if we run them over, it's the parent's fault. I'm not saying a parent should always keep the kid by his or her, but they should at least keep them nearby in a worknig warehouse such as the Home Depot.
And as for the ladder, believe me, it's a 13-step ladder, like a large rolling staircase more than a ladder that people are used to seeing. It's about 15 feet high in the air, and a fall from that onto hard concrete floor can kill a child.
It was a case of me looking out for the safety of a kid that wasn't even mine. I'm just a decent human being. The parents didn't seem to care one bit, serously.
Sick I tell you! Ã, :'(
this reminds me of the other day when i was at the pool and some girl got dunked by another kid,....the life gaurd stands there scratching his belly, apparently aware that the girl is going down,... ( she needs no help at this point, she is going under by herself ) so I, seeing this,...and also having some lifegaurding experience myself, went in and pulled her out. her parents arrived on the scene as she was gasping and choking, and the lifegaurd is still looking on with a vacant stare. It made me wonder if maybe the guy was just being paid to stand there holding a towel, or what? I guess he didn't want to get wet. What incompetance though,....not only can't you trust your kid alone in a hardware store,...you can't even trust them under the gaze of a lifegaurd in a pool.
I understand your story, but "not only can't you trust your kid alone in a hardware store"? I would hope that parents would not leave their kids alone in a hardware store, especially one with working machines and rolling ladders. But it seems to happen more and more, parents not caring where their kids are running off to, even when they hear the beeping and whirring of active machinery moving around.
It's called Irony, Rich ;)
I can see your point, just don't be TOO quick to judge. Sounds like in your case, you weren't, though!
I used to work in a super market (wasn't anything super about it ...).Ã, One time I caught a woman stealing beer (two 40 oz. bottles).Ã, This isn't remarkable ... I used to catch people stealing ALL the time.
She had hidden the beer UNDER HER INFANT BABY in the stroller (pram).
It made me sick to my stomach.Ã, I hauled her into the 'holding' office and called the cops.Ã, She was BEGGING me ... telling me she'd do 'anything' and even offered a few things (use your imaginations) if I would let her go.
The cops arrested her and they took the baby from her.Ã, I don't know how it ended up, but hopefuly the kid was given a better home.Ã, But knowing the system, the lady probably got the kid back 2 days later.
*shrugs* you're right Rich ... some people just don't deserve it.
Once when I was walking down the street I saw a woman talking on her phone and walking quite fast. Her crying child tried to keep up, but she was moving much faster than the child. The child eventually tripped and fell down on the asphalt and scraped it's knee. Then the mother turned around and got angry at the child for falling and telling it that it can't behave.
My mum works in a school, she's had some pretty weird experiences on parent-teacher night.
The thing is, most of these people we judge as 'bad parents'arn't nessercerly bad people, they just don't understand that what they're doing could be bad for a child.
So. Foolish, yes. Idiots, maybe. Weirdos, most certainly. But bad people...You'df need to spend a bit more time with them to work that out...
Maybe not "bad" people, but "idiot" fits them well. Haddas: that's typical with people who aren't fit to be parents. By "fit" I mean people who have the mentality to be a parent. If you don't have the patience for a small child that is slower than you and can't always keep up, then get a chihuahua or something.
Here's something perverse, that's all eveybody's talking about. In Algarve, a region of Portugal, it seems that some wonam killed her 8yr old daughter for money. And then distributed "Missing" flyers.
In madiera a small island off portugal, two old men where fighting over a massive pumpkin (sp) & one took out a big knif and lashed theother guy, over a PUMPKIN! >:(
A short while ago I saw these 2 oldish bags talking in that way they do, and one of them had a 4 year old kid, who was carrying a little shopping bag.
They crossed a zebra crossing, the mother didn't care to check that her child was there, much less hold his hand on this busy main road that led in and out of the city centre.
So they walk on (both smoking) and the kid runs behind them, trying to catch up. Coming back onto the pavement, the kid trips on an uneven kerb stone. He falls flat on his face, dropping the bag. The mother turns around, points towards the bag, shouts, HITS THE CHILD around the back of his little HEAD, then walks on. The child, now in tears, picks up the things from the bag and runs after his mother.
It made me sick, I almost cried.
Some people DON'T deserve children. And seeing how everyone who posted here has a story, maybe more people than we thought are bad parents.
That's sad. Seriously, I hate it when old[-fashioned] people treat kids lilke they're doing something wrong, when all they're doing is tryng to keep up with them. That's the way most old folks are; if a kid isn't going as fast as they'd like and they make an honest mistake or accidentally do (or don't do) something, they hit them.
And don't even get me started on the whole physical discipline argument. That's for another thread, at another time. This is the "negligent/stupid parents" thread. :)
Quote from: SQ4.5 on Mon 27/09/2004 20:48:56In madiera a small island off portugal, two old men where fighting over a massive pumpkin (sp) & one took out a big knif and lashed theother guy, over a PUMPKIN!Ã, >:(
Yeah, they really shouldn't treat their kids like that ? ? ?
Here's the problem I see a lot these days.Ã, Those that shouldn't be having kids (crackwhores, losers, etc) are the ones actually having them.Ã, While the people who CAN handle kids, and be good parents, are waiting till they're ready.
It's tragic.Ã, But unless they (in America) decide to trim a little [more] fat off the constitution and take away some more of our civil liberties it's just going to keep happening.
These same losers can then cheat wellfair and use the money to buy alcohol, drugs, etc. rather than taking care of their illegitiment child(ren).
Then those same kids grow up and repeat their parent(s) mistakes.Ã, It's vicious circle that keeps going 'round and 'round.
Isn't it China that has severe laws about the number of kids per family?Ã, How does that work?
Quote
Isn't it China that has severe laws about the number of kids per family? How does that work?
The One Child policy. I learned about it a bit last year during school. Basically China gives benefits to families with only ONE child, but not to families with more than one child. At first I didn't like this idea, but on more thought it's grown on me. The fact that China's government is actually trying to do something about the overpoulation. And they're being smart about it too. They offer free vasectomies (Spelling?) to any male who wants one, among other things they do to insure that families only have one child.
And back on topic, with the whole Bad Parents thing... I feel privilaged. I live in British columbia, canada, and can't remember the last time I saw an example of bad parenting. Like today, a bunch of my friends were hanging out by a playground (We had the day off school), and a little kid, maybe four came up to us. He was there at the playground with his mother and another kid, and mere seconds after he had started talking to us, the mother rushed over to see where he had gone to. She smiled, saw that he was giving us all high fives (Really cute kid), then saw his mother and rushed back to her. She picked him up, smiled at us, and walked back to the playground.
Well that 1-child policy was actually creating tragedies in the mainland. While sometimes parents may love their only child many bad things happened to other families.
(This is not offtopic as it's also dealt with bad parents.)
Traditionally, we Chinese like boys more than girls, for conservative reasons such as keeping the bloodline of the families, and boys are in general stronger, so are more adapted to work on the fields.
When couples gave birth to a baby, if it's a girl, it's not an uncommon news that they may kill her (stangled her to death, choke her in water, or just drop her elsewhere), especially when it's in poor farming regions (if the parents are richer, they may think of abortion, before the baby was born). Often times you can even find dead babies scattered around in the main street in some places.
Another problem thus produced is that now there're much more male youths than female in the mainland (in contrary to Hong Kong here, which is opposite).
Due to these mishaps, I think the policy is not enforced that hard anymore in the mainland.
Yeah, in principle I agree with the Chinese government trying to stop population growth (which is honestly what I consider to be the number one most important problem in the world) but there are so many horror stories related to the way it actually works, it's not a good idea. It's hard to think of an alternative though. It's really a matter of educating people MUCH better and bringing children up to be thoughtful, responsible and well-rounded people. It can be done but it's gonna take a LONG time and a lot of effort, and it that time... this problem continues.
I totally agree that there are a lot of straight out BAD parents out there who just should not have the right to have children. It's another problem I just can't think of a realistic solution to. I mean... people have babies. You can't really stop them just by creating govenment policies. I would -love- it if people had to apply to have a child and the system worked wonderfully to allow only good, responsible people suited to parenting who could afford a child to have them. This is just utterly undoable though, if you think about it.
Again, really... the ultimate solution is to raise human beings so that they become good people without financial problems. If I could see that in my lifetime, I'd die awfully happy.
In the short term, I think the best thing we can do is to set a good example for others and praise people who do a good job. Speak out when you see a parent doing something really bad but try to make them understand rather than simply accusing them. It's hard though, when I see a parent doing something really stupid, I want to hit them with a 2 by 4 and take the kid away to a better life.
It's funny though, no matter where you go, if you say ONE thing to correct a parent regarding their child[ren], they get all huffy and act like you're persecuting them or something. They get all possessive ("it's MY kid, not yours!") and just plain stop listening. Stubborn bastards. Is it somethng about raising a child that makes a person stubborn and deaf to the outside world? When I have kids, I want all the help I can get. Parenting books, advice from good friends, watching how others do it (good examples, not the ones we've been telling).
As for the parenting licensing idea, if it ever existed, I would be all for it. I'm envisioning something like ten or so questions that you have to answer orally, like "what-would-you-do-if" kinda scenarios. I would definitely take it if it meant filterng out bad parents. Then again, people could lie and give the "right" answer to the questions and just continue to be idiots withtheir children. What then?
That's a terrible thing about killing the newborns ... I can't even imagine.
A few years ago some friends and I had this discussion. Ã, I came up with some thoughts ...
Radical System #1
If a woman gives birth and ends up in the hospital (whether she went to give birth or tried to squeeze the kid out in an ally and ended up in the hospital ... whatever) the doctors should perform certain tests.
1) drug test - if there is ANY type of illegal substance in her body she loses.
2) blood/alcohol level - if she's anywhere near intoxicated (this level should be much lower than the driving limit ... she IS pregnent) she loses.
3) the daddy test - if she can't positively prove who the father is, she loses.
#3 is the only one where she should receive any leeway ... but if 1 or 2 are true, the doctors should perform a tube-tying operation (whatever that's called) so she can never have babies again.Ã, Better yet ... take out the baby, then take out the uterus.Ã, A woman that would be high and/or drunk while having a child should NEVER be allowed to have babies period.Ã, So they should ensure she'll not have more.
I think it should be a 1 strike policy.
Radical System #2
Like Kinoko said, they institute a 'license to procreate'. Ã, You have to meet certain criteria in order to have kids. Ã, Perhaps;
1) you must be married
2) you must achieve a certain income
3) you must not have a criminal record
Something like that. Ã, If you don't meet these standards, you can't reproduce. Ã, If you do 1 time, you get taxed up the wazoo! Ã, If you do it again, you lose the ability to ever have kids again (tube tie or removal of testicals ... something) and you pay HUGE fines until the kid(s) are 18.Ã, BOTH parents.
Of course, the biggest problems that would come from these 'laws' would be that 1) abortion would sky rocket (which would raise another shit storm of debate in the world) and 2) a lot of 'ally' babies would be born because people wouldn't want to get caught having the kid.
So, also like Kinoko said, I just don't see a [reasonable] solution to the problem.Ã, It's probably going to have to be something radical.
The thing with radical suggestions is that they just might work...but they're radical. This goes along the same lines as a money-less society. There are ways to make them work, but people might not like the abrupt and radical change. I'm for the radical system. At the very least, it's a good idea for a future to write about in a game or a book.
Darth, I dont know wether to slap you or build a temple to you. Tube tieing is a bit overboard, drugs and alcohal abuse can be fixed with rehab.
But system 2 I abhor. Income??? Amish families have little income but still manage. Criminal record? please tell me your only refering to felonys. I can see it now, everyone with a speeding ticket loses the right to have kids!
There can always be adjustments and conditions. The income thing could be altered so that it fits the lifestyle. If you live in the city and are poor, then no kids (or maybe a limit??). If you live in the country, then income has little effect on childbearing, because needs are minimalized. As for the criminal record, I would think that only felonies would count, and major ones like murder, rape, drug dealing, etc. As for the drug idea, if drugs are detected, then they are forced into rehab and the child taken away until rehab is finished and the person is deemed capable once again.
My worst negligent parent story happened this summer.
At the Rennaisance Festival where I worked, there was a dunk arm- a log suspended from a chain with a chair on the end. Ã, At four o'clock there was a show where cast members got dunked in the pond much to everyone's amusement.
This thing was a death trap. Ã, The pond is thirty feet deep, the log could twist and dump you in the water. Ã, We had three people with life guard training around whenever we did the show, and five people, including two guys weighing over two hundered pounds on the end to keep the chair from falling into the water. Ã, While the show was not on (most of the day), the chair was chained in place and locked with a big honking padlock. Ã, There were also signs posted "Do Not Touch- Property of Sheriff's Department."
You'd think people would get the hint.
The second day of the festival, a cast member was wandering past the pond to see a family of four who, after RIPPING THE CHAIN OUT OF THE STAGE, were dunking their three year old son. He called security and forced the people to bring the little boy back in.
"But he was hot!" they cried. Good GOD! Ã, If he's hot, buy him a drink, sit in the shade, or go home! Don't attempt to drown him!
My theory to keep morons from having babies: temporary sterilization at birth. Ã, After you have taken a test that says "Yes! You are not a danger to a new life!" the sterilization is removed. Ã, If you need a license to adopt a dog from the pound, you should DEFINETLY need a license to have a baby. Ã, Screw you, Human Rights! Ã, No one should have the right to make someone else's life a living hell.
End Rant.
God damn, I had a huge, thoughtful post that I just lost. Ah well.
Something new.
Dragon: God, it's just unbelievable how STUPID some people are!
LostTraveler - I meant those more as suggestions than actual solutions. Ã, But as Rich pointed out, sometimes it's necessary to do radical things. Ã, I, too, am all for radical change if the end result is worth it. Ã, And I think over population and neglegent parenting is a big enough issue to warrent taking drastic steps to remedy the problem.
DragonRose - Unbelievable ... and then they get mad 'cause they got in trouble for being ignorant ... oh the irony.
That's a pretty good idea ... the sterilization at birth thing. Ã, I mean, sure, it too is drastic. Ã, But you're absolutely right that nobody has the right to screw up somebody elses life.
It's too bad if can't be programmed into the human code:
if (person = bad) {
set reproduce=0; // no children allowed
}
else if (person = good) {
set reproduce=1; // can have 1 child
}
else if (person = great) {
set reproduce=2; // can reproduce at will
}
}
Perhaps someday ...
The last thing I want is any system that questions my right to have a child, no matter what it is it's going to take away my freedom. Required marriage is arbitrary, since that's a traditional thing that a lot of people don't believe in. Besides, with a 50% divorce rate, how can you trust people to take it seriously anyway? Income, criminal record? I thought this was the land of oppurtunity? You sound pretty conservative Darth, especially with that "prove who the father is" part. I don't think that should lose someone their child. It might seem like there is no shortage of people waiting to adopt excess babies but that's only a half-truth since most adopting parents want a white newborn baby. Most babies up for adoption are of mixed race and they're hard to find parents for (at least, in Oklahoma).
Despite that, I feel like I live around the low end of the gene pool. I don't know what could fix it because there are too many idiots to count and if we banned them all from having babies we probably wouldn't have a population for very long.
A couple of years ago I was staying at a mates place for about a month and the nextdoor neighbours were taking advantage of the wellfare system, both parents unemployed living in quite a small rundown house, with 5 kids and 1 on the way.
The wellfare system in Australia is opposite to China, they encourage people to have more kids and offer more money per child.
It is a problem in some areas and it's usually the poorer people that have more kids and use the money for themselves, and quite often for drugs.
The particular family that I was talking about were just like this. The parents were nice people when you had a conversation with them, but they were both drug addicts which causes mood swings and they did quite a lot of yelling at their kids.
The kids were all under the age of 10, and quite friendly outgoing kids. They did wander off quite often, and often came to visit without the parents knowing. the parents cared and came looking, but looking after 5 young kids would be hard, especially when you're off your face all the time.
The eldest boy was often getting into trouble at school, but He cared so much for his brothers and sisters, from what I saw, he was a better parent than his parents.
I felt really sorry for these kids as they won't get the chances as many others given their circumstances, even if they are as smart (if not smarter)
Taking advantage of a welfare system for yourself for a while to get yourself on track is fine, but bringing up a family entirely on welfare just for your own benefit and having extra kids to get more money for drugs is the ultimate worst case scenario, but this happens much more than you'd realise.
Quote from: shbazjinkens on Tue 28/09/2004 06:45:16I thought this was the land of oppurtunity?
Land of opportunity is great and democracy is great, but I really think that what America (can't speak for the rest of the world) is experiencing now is the dark-side of democracy.Ã, People expect too much from their so-called 'freedom'.Ã, They're unwilling to sacrifice ANYthing for the greater good.Ã, People have become so spoiled by personal freedom that any sense of something bigger than their own well being is lost.Ã, To me this is very sad.
Quote from: shbazjinkens on Tue 28/09/2004 06:45:16You sound pretty conservative Darth, especially with that "prove who the father is" part. I don't think that should lose someone their child.
I don't really consider myself conservative (I don't really consider myself much of anything with a lable ... mostly 'cause I don't really think about it.)Ã, I just tend to say/type what's on my mind at the time.
I wasn't saying that if she can't prove who the father is she should lose the child, she should lose the ability to have more children.Ã, I do, however, think that if she's on any controlled substance (while pregnent) she should lose the kid.Ã, Ã, If you can't have the willpower to stop yourself from doing something so obviously harmful to the kid just to satisfy your own needs, you aren't fit to take care of a baby.
But of course this idiot would have an excuse for taking drugs while pregnent.Ã, That's another huge problem in the world.Ã, Nobody takes responsibility for their own problems.Ã, It's
always somebody elses fault.
"I lost my job ... so I started doing drugs and spiralled into a world of chaos and crime.Ã, It's my bosses fault for firing me!!"- Take responsibility for yourself.Ã, Stop being lazy.Ã, Stop whining and make something for yourself.Ã, Stop blaming others.
"It's the white man keeping me down!!"- Bullshit.Ã, Quit whining and get off your lazy fu--ing ass and actually work.
"I didn't know my kid was capable of committing mass murder at school!"The very fact that you didn't know means you're a bad parent.Ã, You would have known (in most cases) that something was wrong with your kid if you actually paid attention to him as parents should.
I guess I'm just trying to say that this topic, of bad parents not deserving kids, is just part of a much larger system of problems.Ã, But I think it might be a major part of all these connected problems and might be the place to start.
The latest advice in the UK is that any alchohol intake while pregnant could be harmful. Since the effect of alchohol on a person is roughtly proportional to body weight, and depending on stage of development, a baby could have a hundredth of an adults body weight, even half a lager could be equivalent to 100 units... obviously bad news for baby
In rich countries like most of us live in, goverments know that they have to encourage people to have kids. Those kids are going to have to support a rapidly aging population, so the more the better. They will be the ones that pay for our retirement, one way or another. The west has a problem with underpopulation, not overpopulation.
Welfare systems are often designed piecemeal and thus actually encourage people,to explot them and not to seek work. Means-testing just makes the problem worse. Only a universal benefit system can encourage people to start working their way off the bottom, yet support those in genuine need.
Kids who commit crimes or commit suicide are not just a product of their parents upbringing of them. There are so many factors at work, that it is naive to assume that trying to deal with one factor (even assuming that any of the methods suggested for that would work) .
All of us can think of things that our parents did wrong in bringing us up... does that mean that we should all be only children?
Read some books on child development, Darth, and you'll see hundreds of anecdotes of parents doing things that seem like loving behaviour actually encouraging bad behaviour in the kid. ITS NOT SO SIMPLE. But despite all this, most of us grow up and are able to handle life most of the time. I think a loss of human rights is a very big price to pay . A wise man (who had illegitimate children) once said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither libery nor safety."
I agree with Darth's comments on abuse of freedom and liberties. You know, there are rights, and then there are responsibilities. You have the right to have a baby whenever and with whomever you want, but you have the responsibilty to raise him or her to the best of your abilities and ensure that he or she is an upstanding citizen. You have the right to welfare, but you have the responsibility to NOT abuse it. Every right comes with a responsbility. The problem with this country (America) is that people abuse their freedoms so much that we have become complacent and lazy and uncaring. It's only when people lose them that they cry and bitch and complain. An example of this is the Patriot Act, where we lost most of our privacy freedoms. I hate that bill and wish it were never passed, but whose to say it wasn't necessary.
And there comes a point where freedoms have to be lost in order to protect security. I learned about that in high school government class, that national security takes precedence over freedom. As for personal security, i.e. seeing children being neglected, I believe their safety and wellbeing takes precendence over the parents' freedom to do drugs (not really a freedom) and abuse welfare. See, that's the thing. People abuse welfare to get and do drugs, because they know that they can.
I've had many ideas for welfare, on restricting it. There should be mandatory drug screenings every week, or month if need be. The recipient(s) MUSt be employed full time and hire a babysitter/daycare center if they need to. There should be a maximum child requirement, any birth or adoption over that number immediately disqualifies them for welfare.
I believe in freedom, but in moderation.
Although I totally disagreed with a lot of Darth's suggested requirements, I also completely agree with this:
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 28/09/2004 12:34:51
Quote from: shbazjinkens on Tue 28/09/2004 06:45:16I thought this was the land of oppurtunity?
Land of opportunity is great and democracy is great, but I really think that what America (can't speak for the rest of the world) is experiencing now is the dark-side of democracy.Ã, People expect too much from their so-called 'freedom'.Ã, They're unwilling to sacrifice ANYthing for the greater good.Ã, People have become so spoiled by personal freedom that any sense of something bigger than their own well being is lost.Ã, To me this is very sad.
People often ARE spoilt with freedom and it's part of the reason I usually hate almost everything that civil libertarians stand up for. It's like fighting for the right of an ant to walk over a stick, while questions over the rights of the human race to exist go unanswered. That's my stupid way of saying they always seem to fight adamantly for ridiculous rights instead of doing useful things in life.
Individually, people have the right to do whatever the fuck the want, really. I could go around slaughtering people willy-nilly because... I exist and I can. That, however, is a very primitive way to think and we've come farther than that. If any person wants the benefits of living amongst other people in a society, they have responsibilities, and they have to obey rules in order for us all to live well together and for a future.
It's SO true that in Australia, people are encouraged to have children. We have this impending retirement crisis and the government are shitting themselves about it. Their solution is a temporary population explosion that causes long term damage. Devastation, even. Because it won't be THEIR government's problem in the future though, they don't care.
I hate this solution. I think everyone in society needs to look at the larger picture of the Earth and how it's expected to support such an enormous population of humans. It can't go on forever, and it's certainly not coping now. Anyone who thinks otherwise can't see past their front gate.
We just have to accept responsibility for the baby boomers and handle the bad financial situation we'll experience with the retirees as best we can on our own, without giving birth to new people to lighten the load. We have to, excuse my language, take it up the arse for a bit before things can get better. Running away from our problems and making them worse is not the answer.
So, I think that population is at least one of if not the biggest problem we face globally right now. Plenty of people need to keep having kids, of course, but some don't deserve it and they might as well help the population crisis while they're not having kids.
I'm not talking about a parent who accidentally lets their kid scrape a knee, or a parent who has a shoplifting record from the age of 15, or a mother who can't say who the father is. We ALL know there ARE parents out there who just should not have ever gotten pregnant and don't under any circumstances deserve the right to raise a child. Children aren't toys, we all know that. A parent's responsibility is to raise another human being as well as that child needs to be raised. I can't say "To the best of their ability" because some parents' best isn't near good enough.
I, for one, don't think we need any sudden, drastic measures because as great as they sound, I -know- they won't work. We need to change things bit by bit or else there'll be a "revolution" and it'll all just be worse.
I'd LOVE the right to take people's children away from them when I saw them being raised by what I consider to be bad parents. However, what we want to do or what we feel people deserve isn't the goal, it's a world where ALL children are raised well, lead happy, healthy lives and ALL have chances in life. If you want to achieve that as opposed to giving people their just desserts (is that the phrase?), then you can't really want a radical change because it won't ever work.
Education is the key, I believe ^_^ That, and good policies in the meantime to stop completely the extreme cases of bad parenting.
Quote from: QuantumRich on Tue 28/09/2004 14:43:39
I've had many ideas for welfare, on restricting it.
The recipient(s) MUSt be employed full time and hire a babysitter/daycare center if they need to.
Despite the fact that this may be worse for the children, or may be more expensive than any wage they can earn? Surely part of the point of all this stuff was that we should do what is best for the kids?
Quote
There should be a maximum child requirement, any birth or adoption over that number immediately disqualifies them for welfare.
Isn't this kind of unfair to (a) Devout Catholics or other religions that prohibit contraception and thus violating some constitutional amendment or other (b) People who have already had lots of kids, find themselves unexpcetedly out of work through no fault of their own and are trying to restart their lives (c) those extra kids, who are now going to suffer because of your rule? (d) women who have been raped but have a moral objection to abortion (e) when it comes to fathers, would children that you act like a father too (i.e. stepchildren) count? If they did count, does that mean the biological father then doesn't count them? Does a couple get counted as a pair or separately? Wouldn't it discourage adoption, which is generally far better for the kids than care homes?
Quote from: Kinoko on Tue 28/09/2004 15:17:11
I'm not talking about a parent who accidentally lets their kid scrape a knee, or a parent who has a shoplifting record from the age of 15, or a mother who can't say who the father is. We ALL know there ARE parents out there who just should not have ever gotten pregnant and don't under any circumstances deserve the right to raise a child. Children aren't toys, we all know that. A parent's responsibility is to raise another human being as well as that child needs to be raised. I can't say "To the best of their ability" because some parents' best isn't near good enough.
I'd LOVE the right to take people's children away from them when I saw them being raised by what I consider to be bad parents. However, what we want to do or what we feel people deserve isn't the goal, it's a world where ALL children are raised well, lead happy, healthy lives and ALL have chances in life.
Here's an important difference from what other people have said: you have to act on how parents HAVE treated their kids, not how they might. Until Minority Report comes reality, we can't judge people in advance of what they might do to their kids. The state does have the right to remove kids from their parents, but its not just a simple choice like that: care homes are crap. Having known some people who have been in them, they are awful places to be, no matter how good and caring the staff might be (and they often are not that even). So, in many cases staying with parents who are being treated for some condition (usually depression) would be much better for the kids.
SSH, instead of criticizing my ideas, why not try amending/changing them? We'll add an exception for rape, and forget the whole babysitter idea, it was a bad idea. How about instead, if there are two parents, then at least one must have a full time job. As for already having more than one childre, they can apply for, say, limited welfare. I mean, if you can't limit yourself on how many kids you have and start reproducing like rabbits, and never prepared for it, then why should they get the same welfare treatment as people with one or two kids that need the help? I mean, there is a legitimate welfare need, and there's an abusive "need". It would be up to whomever is in charge of welfare to determine what type of need, through interviews, observation, etc.
Why would it be unfar to devout Catholics, etc.? Just don't have sex if you can't have more children. Devout Catholics should already know this, that with this new limit, they should just restrain themselves. This is why most devout Catholics don't have 25 kids. If the person has a moral objection to abortion, then they can have the kid, but either (1) be eligible for limited welfare, or (2) be disqualified. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. People should learn that.
As for care homes and whatnot, both of my parents had full time jobs. They worked. My grandmother pretty much raised me during the morning and afternoon, and my parents raised me in the evenings. I'm still very close to my parents. It worked out. If the parents don't have some trusted relative, then they should prepare before having children. That's the thing with having a family. People tend to start them without ANY preparation whatsoever. There are things to consider (how to afford it, how to care for the child during work hours). There are workarounds. One parent could work the nightshift if need be. But there are ways to do it.
Quote from: SSH on Tue 28/09/2004 14:09:35Kids who commit crimes or commit suicide are not just a product of their parents upbringing of them. There are so many factors at work, that it is naive to assume that trying to deal with one factor (even assuming that any of the methods suggested for that would work) .
Read some books on child development, Darth, and you'll see hundreds of anecdotes of parents doing things that seem like loving behaviour actually encouraging bad behaviour in the kid. ITS NOT SO SIMPLE.
I wasn't trying to suggest, in ANY way, that the child committing mass murder at school was the parent's fault.Ã, More just that the problem was the parent's didn't know that their child was capable of doing it.Ã, For whatever reason the kid was corrupted into doing something like that, if the parents were good parents they would have noticed that something was wrong.Ã, Ã, (again, in MOST cases, there's always exceptions.)
I'm going to back out of this discussion ... I can see that my radical views aren't well recieved by some and the last thing I want to do is offend people.Ã, It's one of the reasons I've stayed out of topics like this in recent months!
If I've offended any of you let me be the first to apologize.
~ darth
Quote from: SSH on Tue 28/09/2004 15:30:45
Quote from: Kinoko on Tue 28/09/2004 15:17:11
I'm not talking about a parent who accidentally lets their kid scrape a knee, or a parent who has a shoplifting record from the age of 15, or a mother who can't say who the father is. We ALL know there ARE parents out there who just should not have ever gotten pregnant and don't under any circumstances deserve the right to raise a child. Children aren't toys, we all know that. A parent's responsibility is to raise another human being as well as that child needs to be raised. I can't say "To the best of their ability" because some parents' best isn't near good enough.
I'd LOVE the right to take people's children away from them when I saw them being raised by what I consider to be bad parents. However, what we want to do or what we feel people deserve isn't the goal, it's a world where ALL children are raised well, lead happy, healthy lives and ALL have chances in life.
Here's an important difference from what other people have said: you have to act on how parents HAVE treated their kids, not how they might. Until Minority Report comes reality, we can't judge people in advance of what they might do to their kids. The state does have the right to remove kids from their parents, but its not just a simple choice like that: care homes are crap. Having known some people who have been in them, they are awful places to be, no matter how good and caring the staff might be (and they often are not that even). So, in many cases staying with parents who are being treated for some condition (usually depression) would be much better for the kids.
Agreed in some circumstances, but there ARE circumstances where a persons previous behavious in other areas indicates they definitely would not make good parents, or at least are at great risk of not being a good parents. I totally agree with rapists/murderers/child abusers never being allowed to have children. Not matter how reformed, the risk is too great and when you've done something as bad as that, you lose your rights in this regard for life.
There are some people you can just speak to and know that aren't ready for parenting. They just give off "stupidity" and "irresponsibility", and you -know-. It's a vibe... hard to measure, but in this case it's not that people should be made sterile. Just that I don't think they should have kids until they've grown up and become better people.
Quote from: QuantumRich on Tue 28/09/2004 15:39:04
SSH, instead of criticizing my ideas, why not try amending/changing them?
Because I don't agree with them one iota?
Quote
We'll add an exception for rape
In which case, for the purposes of welfare, they'll just claimed they were raped but don't want to prosecute.
QuoteHow about instead, if there are two parents, then at least one must have a full time job.
So if the mother looks after the kids and then the father is made redundant through no fault of his own then they dont get any help?
Quote
As for already having more than one childre, they can apply for, say, limited welfare. I mean, if you can't limit yourself on how many kids you have and start reproducing like rabbits, and never prepared for it, then why should they get the same welfare treatment as people with one or two kids that need the help?
So the poor newborn baby has to suffer because the parents were silly?
Quote
Why would it be unfar to devout Catholics, etc.? Just don't have sex if you can't have more children.
Oh, well thats alright then ::)
Quote
This is why most devout Catholics don't have 25 kids.
Or maybe due to the fact that "natural" family palnning methods can have a best-case 2% chance per year of conception if done perfectly (which is about the same as the Pill) and even if done badly sometimes gives about 15% per year chance.
Quote
If the person has a moral objection to abortion, then they can have the kid, but either (1) be eligible for limited welfare, or (2) be disqualified. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. People should learn that.
So reward people who would murder unborn children? I thoguht you wanted parents who were good parents?
Quote
If the parents don't have some trusted relative, then they should prepare before having children.
So you should penalise people whose parents have both died young?
Quote
That's the thing with having a family. People tend to start them without ANY preparation whatsoever.
"Tend to"? Which statistical study is this assumption based on? Anyway, doesn't foreplay count? :=
Quote
One parent could work the nightshift if need be. But there are ways to do it.
That's kind of what my wife and me do at the moment and it means that we nearly never see each other. In a marriage that wasn't so strong, it could destroy the relationship which would be REALLY good for the kids.
Quote from: Kinoko on Tue 28/09/2004 16:12:44
Agreed in some circumstances, but there ARE circumstances where a persons previous behavious in other areas indicates they definitely would not make good parents, or at least are at great risk of not being a good parents. I totally agree with rapists/murderers/child abusers never being allowed to have children. Not matter how reformed, the risk is too great and when you've done something as bad as that, you lose your rights in this regard for life.
What if a murdered killed someone out of revenge for them having hurt their child and got away with it (e.g. A Time To Kill movie).. would they then not be allowed to have kids? And what if a conviction was overturned? Medical technology can't guarantee that sterilisations are reversible, and they aren't 100% reliable, either. And that's before we even get into the whole punishment versus reform argument.
Quote
There are some people you can just speak to and know that aren't ready for parenting. They just give off "stupidity" and "irresponsibility", and you -know-. It's a vibe... hard to measure, but in this case it's not that people should be made sterile. Just that I don't think they should have kids until they've grown up and become better people.
But since its impossible to measure and oh so very subjective, should it become law anywhere? I argree that there's some pretty irresponsible people around, but you just can't legislate for this kind of thing. And the whole idea stinks of the slippery slope to Eugenics.
Quote from: QuantumRich
I cannot believe the idiocy of some parents. I mean, you have a child, and LET him roam FREE in a WAREHOUSE store?
OMG, they let children roam free? What if they start up a chainsaw, or remodify the stapletacker to shoot without the safety switch. Children have to be chained in the basement with a camera focused on them 24/7!
For real. Children
don't have a death wish. They won't jump in front of cars on purpose. Besides, I fell many timesÃ, from my bike or playing soccer on the stone street. Yes, at the time it hurd and I cried like hell but I never got an serious injury. Should parents keep children inside? NO! Children want to explore. To prevent them from doing that will fuck them up for the rest of their lifes.
There are a thousand ways you can die or get hurt inside a warehouse store. You work in one, how many accedents happen there on a daily basis?
You said it yourself that kid wasn't bad, those parents trusted their kid as every parent should.
B.T.W. How many children are being kidnapped on a daily basis in that warehouse store?
So I guess we're starting to see why the current systems have a hard time preventing bad parenting. Any radical changes are going to have radical (and sometimes bad) consequences. I don't think anyone can disagree with disallowing pregnancy to substance abusers, but other things are too arbitrary to actually put in place. The current laws in the US do try to prevent bad parenting, but it requires intervention from people close enough to the kids to testify and thoroughly prove there is a problem. I think this is good and bad.. it's good because a lot of teenage kids are dumb enough to pretend they have more problems than they really do and get their parents in a shit-heap of trouble.
Quote from: jetxl on Tue 28/09/2004 18:28:03
They won't jump in front of cars on purpose.
The problem with letting them roam free is that they don't always pay a lot of attention to all of their surroundings and they jump in front of cars by accident. How many times have you seen a child chase a ball into the street, or for that matter, play ball games in the street? Assuming you lived in a neighborhood with kids that played outside a lot, I would guess that it was more than a few times.
Quote from: SSH on Tue 28/09/2004 16:40:02
Quote from: Kinoko on Tue 28/09/2004 16:12:44
Agreed in some circumstances, but there ARE circumstances where a persons previous behavious in other areas indicates they definitely would not make good parents, or at least are at great risk of not being a good parents. I totally agree with rapists/murderers/child abusers never being allowed to have children. Not matter how reformed, the risk is too great and when you've done something as bad as that, you lose your rights in this regard for life.
What if a murdered killed someone out of revenge for them having hurt their child and got away with it (e.g. A Time To Kill movie).. would they then not be allowed to have kids? And what if a conviction was overturned? Medical technology can't guarantee that sterilisations are reversible, and they aren't 100% reliable, either. And that's before we even get into the whole punishment versus reform argument.
Seriously, SSH. Are you just inventing these circumstances for the sake of it? :P
A Time to Kill is a powerful movie and I'm glad the guy got off, but you know... it was still a terrible thing he did. I'm glad he did it, but the payoff he got for it is that those two rapists are dead and he can now live the rest of his life with his daughter. I don't think it's such a terrible thing that he shouldn't be having anymore children after that. Even if we do a bad thing in revenge for something horrendous, it's still a bad thing. I truly believe that if you do something that terrible, and taking a life no matter what the circumstances -IS- an enormous deal, you have to accept that you have to live with that choice in some way for the rest of your life. A rapist or a child abuser in particular, no matter how reformed, no matter how sick the thought of committing that crime again makes them... they have to pay for that mistake in some way for the rest of their lives. They can live a happy life in all other ways but they should never ever be allowed to parent or look after or work with a child again. It would be a bad decision for anyone to let them do so. It's kind of like working with animals - no matter how wonderful, good natured and sweet they are, sometimes their brain can -snap- and they can revert back to instinct. Committing a crime like a rape or child abuse is never forgotten, and even though it may be regretted, if something goes wrong with you that's beyond your control, it's much more likely that you as opposed to someone who hasn't experienced that behaviour have the possibility of reverting back to that behaviour. That's in an extreme case, and assuming that someone like that IS completely reformed.
Now, I know this sounds stupid and extreme, but those crimes are extreme and it's unfair on children to put them in constant contact with anyone like that.
Please point out to me where I said that these people should be sterilised. What you're doing is your taking one person's argument, and another person's argument, and assuming they both said both things.
I think it would be GREAT if we could just magically stop these people from having children, and magically only allow people who were good parents to have children. I don't actually think in real life this is practical whatsoever and I've said that.
I still believe that murderers, rapists, and child abusers shouldn't have children. I don't know how or even if this could ever be implimented, but it's what I believe regardless. People need to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences. It's not about punishing them, it's about putting children in the best environments for them.
Quote
There are some people you can just speak to and know that aren't ready for parenting. They just give off "stupidity" and "irresponsibility", and you -know-. It's a vibe... hard to measure, but in this case it's not that people should be made sterile. Just that I don't think they should have kids until they've grown up and become better people.
But since its impossible to measure and oh so very subjective, should it become law anywhere? I argree that there's some pretty irresponsible people around, but you just can't legislate for this kind of thing. And the whole idea stinks of the slippery slope to Eugenics.
Quote
Sure, look, again, I never said it should become legislation. It would be great if magically it was practical to do so, but it isn't.
What I've said the whole way is that the real key is education. When we as a society become well-rounded, good people, we as individuals can all be like that and things like legislation won't be necessary. It's a long way off, but it's the only fool-proof way to do it.
P.S. (as it were)... The comment about abortion (made by Rich) was obviously made by a person who quite clearly -doesn't- think of abortion as "murder of unborn children", as do I. I'm not saying you should change your view, but I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know that Rich doesn't share your views and quite clearly wasn't suggesting we reward people who would "murder unborn children". I mean... you -knew-, come on.
Hello? jetxl, were you serious? Children CANNOT be allowed to roam free in a working warehouse. What planet are you from? There have NO kidnappings and NO mishaps. You know why? WE look out for their children. NOT them. And those parents that I mentioned in my EasyJournal post were NOT atentive. They did not care. Did you even read the entry?
I am serious, I trust kids.
The world wouldn't have fell into chaos if you didn't look out for that kid.
Children, just like adults, get hurt because they don't pay attention. That kid was concentrated when he climbed that ladder.
By the way, who are you to say that those parents don't give a FUCK about their kid. Do you know them personally or do you judge people on their design taiste? And I am sure they don't let their kid wander of on the freeway!
And do you know how BORING it is to listen as a kid to your parents oppinion on fausets. And you would have FORCED that kid to stay? I'm not impying that we should let kid do whatever the hell they want to do, but You are impying that we should chain children to their parents at all times.
You know, it's almost tiring having to be so right and go around correcting everyone's exaggerations all the time ^_^
Jet: Noone could predict what would have happened to that child, but it's entirely possible he may have been hurt, even seriously hurt. Just because they probably don't let their kid loose on the freeway, doesn't mean they don't neglect looking after him in smaller ways (that can be just as deadly). They may not, but they may.
"Do you think you're a good parent?"
"Sure! I do nothing for him but I NEVER let him walk on the freeway."
Sure, it's boring to listen to your parents talk about faucets but it's apart of being a child. Everyone has to put up with things like this... you know why? Because you're a child and your parents say so. Hell, it's a life skill. Try being in a long term relationship. My boyfriend has to put up with me doing all sorts of shopping and I have to do the same for him. I feel like hanging myself from boredom sometimes but I -don't- because I got somewhat uised to it as a child following my parents around in Bunnings ^_^ (which, incedentally, I had a ball at. I loved looking at the -stuff- there, like bathroom settings).
Also, Rich never implied parents should CHAIN their kids to them all the time, whether you're speaking literally or not. Parents DO need to keep a constant eye on their children. I was a very smart child when I was young. One day, my mum had to rush into a friend's house to get something and left me just outside the car so I didn't get uncomfortable and bored in the lady's house. She wasn't more than a couple of minutes, and it was a very friendly, quiet neighbourhood. I decided I wanted to go home - so I did. I just walked home, across several busy streets too. Later on, my mum came home in tears and I'll never forget how awful I felt at that moment.
I don't blame her at all for what she did, my problem was that I WAS a very intelligent, resourceful child and I "knew" I could get home okay. I can't believe how many dangers I narrowly avoided though, I was very lucky to have made it home okay. I can't have been more than 4 or 5 at the most. That, however, is exactly the kind of reason parents do need to keep a constant eye on their children. Children think they know a lot, and that can get them into a lot of trouble. They have absolutely no concept of how they're putting themselves in danger. Sure, a lot of the time, it works out okay. The risk for a little bit of freedom is not worth it though. I've had too many children related to me in some way die because of simple things.
Letting your kids play in the park while you sit to the side and chat with a friend is one thing. Letting them wander completely out of sight in a warehouse or even a shopping centre is not okay because a lot of bad things CAN happen.
So...what's your point.
Quantums point was that those people don't deserve children.
I disagree.
kinda of topic. I climbed all kind of things, even when my parents WERE watching me (my parents are wurry freaks!).
See, that's different, jetxl (and sorry for my insulent tone earlier). As long as your parents are watching you, that's fine. But those parents at my store were NOT watching their kid. And how do I know they're bad parents? The mother weakly called the kid's name once and then SHRUGGED, as if she didn't care, and kept looking at facuets, as if they were more important. I say "as if" because I don't know them personally, but good parents don't do that. I've seen MANY parents go beserk when they can't see where their kids are. Because, as a PARENT, you think of the worst and think about kidnappings. Just because they haven't happen, don't mean they never WILL happen. They are always a possibility.
As a parent, one is responsible for their child's safety and well-being. Letting a kid wander around a working warehouse store, with working forklift trucks where you CAN'T see anything, is just plain stupid. Another point: we sometimes have to pull down or put up pallets in an overhead of an aisle in the store. So what we do is we block off the aisle we're using, PLUS the aisle adjacent to the side we're working on, so that if anything falls down, nobody gets hurt, on the other side. You know, never mind the idiot ADULTS that step through the barricades we put up just to get an item they really want, but we can't be worryinig about unsupervised kids running around, too.
When a kid falls, he falls differently than an adult. He just goes "plop" because of his lack of body weight and body structure. An adult can flail around, try to alter his fall so he lands on his ass or side. A kid can't do that, no matter how intelligent.
And all good parents are worry freaks. That's what makes them good; they care.
I think part of the problem with this thread is that there's really (at least) three separate issues.
1. I'll trust Richard's judgment on his anecdote, as I have no real reasons not to. Those parents were not paying enough attention to their child. My daughter quite likely would be doing the same kind of thing, running around Homebase or B&Q climbing ladders etc, but I at least would be running around after her trying to keep up. Quite possibly they could be better parents.
2. Extrapolating from one incident of negligence to that those people don't desrve to have kids is a Quantum Leap ( :P ) however. We all make mistakes, even about juding potential risk. Letting your kid run off around a supermarket is probably realitively OK, but a hardware store is a different matter, but maybe the parents were just to entranced by the wonderous display of plumbing goods at Rich's shop. On the other hand, Rich was only saying so in a blog := but back to the first hand again and Rich did go on about various ways to reduce welfare payments to kids' parents
3. Even, assuming that in this case the parents shouldn't have kids, extrapolating from a specific case to some kind of radical sterilisation program to reduce the number of parental negligence-related deaths (which seems to be a huge problem in people's minds here, but I have yet to see any hard facts on the death rates involved here, compared with, say, deliberate parental abuse) is another leap.
And sorry Kinoko, I did realise that you weren't advocating sterlisation, but my reply was aimed at more than you: I should have made that clear.
And worry about your kid changes over time. I used to worry that Alba would be born with a birth defect of some kind, but I don't worry about number two so much... does that mean that I won't be such a good parent to her? Or maybe experience is the mother of realism? How much experince in being a parent do you have, Rich?
See, I knew somebody would bring up experience. I HAVE parents. I've observed them. I've observed other parents. I'm a keen observer of human behavior to the point where I can almost identify with certain people. I've observed enough to judge between good parenting methods and bad ones. Just because I'm not a parent myself doesn't mean that my opinions now aren't valid. I will take those opinions and they will shape the way I will raise chldren of my own, which isn't too far off. Please don't invalidate my opinion just because I'm not a parent. There could be so many counter-examples of opinions vs. experience that I could bring up.
I see this thread is going on a clash...
Let me tell you a story. Don't worry, it's quite on the subject. But it's about how my mom is a good parent paying attantion to me.
I was about 3, maybe four. I wanted to go out but didn't tell anyone, just went out. Luckily, my mom noticed my disappearance very quickly. She came out ans saw me - crossing the street with that car coming out of a small curve I've got on my street, speeding, or maybe I just didn't pay attention to it coming. Well, my mom cried out loud, ran across the street grabbing me by the way and getting to the other side before that car hitting us. Well, she risked her life for me. I was so little that I most surely wouldn't survive a hit. She saved my life becuase she noticed my disappearance really fast and she found her courage. And I am proud of my mom and shamed of myself - becuase of me we could have died both...
Well, those people didn't pay attention to their child. From what you say QuantumRich I make that they wouldn't run to save their kid from a speeding car. Or maybe they would? None of us will know for sure.
But one thing I know for sure - you're a good guy, QuantumRich, because you take care.
Heh. Thanks. Apparently, nothing else was left to say on this thread. I think you've just re-defined a "good parent", lelev. Someone willing to risk their own life to save their own child. A great parent would be one willing to give their life for their child.
Sadly, there is no such thing as ideal parent.
How fast was that car driving? You let is sound like it was going 1000mph and he was AIMING at you.
Anyway, when I red the title of the post I thought that is was another sorry about a girl being locked in the closet for 7 year. I don't want to read those stories, but when I finally red the topic it was about such a minor thing. So I got pissed that Rich made such a big deal about a small incedent. I'm sorry, Rich.
Well I was just about in the middle of the road. My mom was just getting on the pavement from one side. And I don't remember everything exactly - you know, I was three or something like that. But I KNOW that car was gonna hit me.
Well I remember that my dad got in a fight becouse of people like that. Each year there's a fstival in my town caled festival LENT. One year a celebraty actualy came to the festival. It was esmeralda from those spanish soap opras (man I hate these shows). So naturaly there was a big croud. Me and my mom are walking in the crowd with my dad and sister behind us. Sudenly a big guy jups in front of us knocking me down (I was 4 or 5 years old at that point). Than he has the nerw to scream at my mom for not loocking where we were going. My dad lost his temper and almoast beat up the guy. At this point I started wandering if that guy had any kids.
Thinking of this festival I remember one funny thing. After we got through the crowd we went to a cafe for some drinks. We sat on the weranda so we could se the whole festival. An old lady comes by walking with 2 crutches. Sudenly someone screams: "ESMERALDA IS HERE !!!"
The old lady threw up the crutshes and ran like crazy. I know this was way of topic but I just thought that was so funny I just had to tel you. That just shows how weard older people can be...
QuoteSo I got pissed that Rich made such a big deal about a small incident. I'm sorry, Rich.
Excuse me? A small incident? Sure, nothing HAPPENED, but there was the possibility of death, and I'm not exaggerating at all when I say that. Think before you type.
Oh, I still disagree. I'm just sorry for making you mad.
I red a newsclip once about a child surviving a 4th floor fall. He threw his toy outside and thought that jumping out of the window was the only route to get it back.
Apperent children are better build against "bumps". If it was an adult, he would have died from internal bleeding (or used the stairs). Not saying that childen jumping out of windows is safe.
But then again the kid you encountered didn't fell. That brings me to the point that you let it sound like you encounter death every day if you're so aware of it.
Now, I myself almost get hit by a bus every workday because I visit the most crouded station of North-Netherlands (bus drivers don't give a fuck about students). I never ever SEEN an accedent, but I heard stories about a someone being squished between two busses. The possibility of death is there and far greater. Still I don't live my life thinking about what might had or had not happened if...
You don't want your children grow up paranoid, dependent and lacking currage. The best way to let children learn things is to let them find things out themselves. If it was right in this case, I dought it. But that girl that was locked in the closet for 7 years could never climb that ladder.
So don't you judge those people that you seen for less that 6 minutes.
Okay, you make a good point, about courage and discovery on one's own. The thing is, I had to make a decision. As an employee, I knew what was expected of me and that I HAD to get him down off of that ladder. We have MANY rules about safety, especially for children. My main point was that the parents didn't seem to care where their son was.
But then, one could also argue that the parents instinctively knew that their son wasn't in any trouble. Who knows? Who's to say. I just spoke from my heart and said what I felt.
ANd another thing, something about me... I had this innate sense of death. Not like a sixth sense or anything, but I am aware of it all the time, of others. In other words, my own life s inconsequential if it means saving someone else's. I fear death, but not for me...for others. My exothanatophobia (fear of others' dying...just made it up by adding "exo-" to "thanatophobia" :P) kicked it and I had to get him down.