The cases being discussed weren’t people who thought they could leave a baby in the car and it would be fine. They were people who forgot they had a baby in the car. Pretending you’re too stupid to tell the difference is just disingenuous.
I’m sorry if this is off topic, but is Diogenes the Cynic the same person who doesn’t seem to get that people lie about their age? If so, I would appreciate a link to that discussion; in particular I would like to see where he outlined his foolproof age detection algorithm.
Does Diogenes the Cynic have a history of trouble with areas of science like evolution or climatology? I would also appreciate links again.
Thanks SDMB
Yes to the former and no to the latter. I can’t provide links to the Age/Fibbing-shit because I wasn’t there at the time, but I can assure you that **Doggy **is otherwise a rationalist who does not dispute contemporary evolution or climatology paradigms.
Someone will jump in to correct me if I’m wrong of course! 
No, I’m the one who says that people DO lie about their age, and therefore you shouldn’t take a girl’s word or fake ID for it before you fuck her.
It’s been over 20 years since I took Crim law, but ISTR that statutory rape was one of very few crimes in which mens rea is not required.
Child neglect is something quite different. Blaron posted a definition of criminal negligence on the first page.
I may be a discompassionate monster, but ISTM that leaving you kid to die in a car fits pretty nicely into that def. It sems odd to say that the parents involved “were not neglectful”, because in at least this one situation they pretty clearly - and disasterously - were. I may “know” I am incapable of murdering someone, but can I infallibly predict how I would act given certain provocation and opportunity? While most folk would understand if I killed some lowlife who tortured, raped, and killed my daughter, I believe society should still conduct process to determine whether I should be held accountable. (No, I’m not trying to equate rapist killing with baby roasting.)
Determining what the reasonable man would do is always difficult. I suggest, tho, that the fact that only 15-25 of the tens of millions of American parents do this annually suggests it may be sufficiently aberrant to be cosidered unreasonable.
Final point - it strikes me as a tad silly that so many folk cite the “Pulitzer Prize winning” newspaper story, as tho it establishes some unquestionable truth about human nature. It’s a frigging newspaper article, that’s all. Not a scientifically juried study. I went to the Pulitzer site to check the criteria for considering something prizeworthy. Guess what?
Thanks for the info, especially kambuckta, but I was serious about not wanting to drag this thread that far off topic.
Dio the Douchebag, aka Doggyknees the Crazy, is at it again in this thread:
He’s ripping the Patriot Guard for the outrageous conduct of not appearing at Matthew Sheppard’s funeral. The fact that Sheppard was murdered in 1998, and the Patriot Guard did not exist until 2005 doesn’t phase Dio. Apparently, in his warped version of reality, all groups much endorse his personal agenda entirely, and must engage in time travel to address incidents occurring before the group was even formed, or be labeled as hypocritical assholes.
World just doesn’t work that way, Dio. You do not get to dictate what other groups must do. There is absolutely nothing wrong, hypocritical, or dishonorable about what the Patriot Guard does. The group exists to protect grieving families of veterans. They have no obligation to take on other causes, whether you like it or not.
Dio, you’re a dumbfuck, an embarrassment to yourself and this board. Kindly go attempt some anatomically improbable act of self gratification.
The Pulitzer Prize in feature writing gives “prime consideration to quality of writing, originality and concision” per the Pulitzer web site. The emphasis is on presentation rather than facts, so you’re right that the Pulitzer doesn’t really apply to the “correctness” of the piece. Weingarten’s piece is feature newspaper article and was held to the same journalistic standards as any other newspaper article. It’s fair to assume that the facts cited are researched, the quotes are accurate, and the authorities cited have the credentials attributed to them.
I think the reason people continue to cite the piece is related to the reason the piece won the award. The topic is sufficiently horrible that I don’t think anyone wants to contemplate it, let alone examine the details. Yet the author’s willingness to address the topic netted a lot of valuable information and insights regarding
[ul]
[li]people who have had this happen to them[/li][li]what happens to these children as they die[/li][li]why these deaths are statistically unlikely and yet continue to occur[/li][li]ways to prevent these deaths[/li][li]variation in legal responses to these incidents and[/li][li]responses (like yours and other anonymous folks on the internet) to these incidents.[/li][/ul]
When I read your response it was evident that you hadn’t read the article, because questions you are asking are discussed in depth in the article. That is why people keep bringing it up. People are citing the article because it has useful, nuanced information, pertinent to the discussion. They mention the Pulitzer because in addition to the utility of the information, it is well put-together.
For the record, I agree with Ray Morrogh, the Commonwealth’s Attorney who brought the charge of involuntary manslaughter in such a case, explaining that it “reaffirm[ed] people’s obligations to protect their children. . .” and I also agree with Commonwealth’s Attorney Earle Mobley, who did not bring a charge in a similar case because, he said, a police investigation showed that there was no crime because there was no intent.
There’s a difference between stating what the law is w/r/t mens rea and statutory, and believing that the law should stand as it is, and believing that anyone who takes any risk whatsoever of violating it, no matter how minuscule, is an irredeemably evil monster.
The issue, dumbass, is that none of these grandstanding attention whores gave a fuck when it was just AIDS victims and murdered gay kids being harrassed. They don’t get any credit from me for suddenly bestirring themselves to care when the victims are more popular and there’s some easy glory in it for them.
And they STILL refuse to help at any funerals besides those of vets, so what’s their excuse now?
There’s nothing heroic about only standing up for the popular kids.
I did read the article before posting in either of these threads. Tho it “discussed” various aspects, I think it came down as more sympathetic to the parents involved, and more accepting of the “stress” explanation/excuse, than I. Undoubtedly reasonable people can differ as to whether or not these parents should be prosecuted. I was simply expressing my opinion, as I disagree with what impressed me as the majority of posters. Personally I often find Dio much like Der Triks. On many social policy issues I substantially agree with their positions/interpretations, yet I regret their manner of expressing themselves.
Not sure what questions I asked were unquestionable resolved in the article. It is a newspaper feature article, not a legal treatise or scientific/medical study, so I’m not going to defer to it as either.
Hey, start a group then, you blowhard. It’s not in their mission statement. They are more concerned about the funerals of those who sacrificed themselves for this country. They don’t have to do EVERYTHING. Kudos to them for what they are doing. And shame on you for being nothing but an internet coward. If you cared so much, you’d have done something by now, other than racking up nearly 50,000 useless posts on a message board.
But I don’t think that’s so weird. People do generally care about what happens to them and their own. Like if I see that HIV/AIDS is affecting one group of people…say, gay men, and I think, “That’s too bad” but do anything bad…am I a terrible person if I know someone who gets it and then suddenly get involved in the fight against HIV?
I don’t know–maybe these people should help out at the funerals of gay people being picketed. It’s not really my place to say since I don’t really get involved in any political causes. But if it honestly doesn’t occur to you to do anything until it affects someone you know, does that really make you a bad person? How do you know it’s because vets are “the popular kids”? Maybe it’s just because they get fired up, being vets.
I mean, I remember the thread about Constance McMillen. There were people who were more critical of Constance who made the argument that Constance didn’t get involved in gay rights until now, when it was her prom, and that that was disingenuous. But others made the argument that it was something that affected her then. We can’t always fight every battle. Is it wrong to choose the ones we feel most passionate about?
Sorry, but I do not understand what you are trying to say here.
I’m not saying they HAVE to do anything, I’m just saying I’m not impressed with the self-serving actions they DO take. Anybody can stand up for the popular kids. That’s not deserving of any kudos.
ETA, I’d have done something about WHAT?
Diogenes has a history of being a very strong defender of science and rational thinking. So his earlier insistence that he didn’t need to read the article because it’s just written by a baby killing apologist seemed very out of character. To his credit, he did eventually read the article.
The times where he gets very, very, stubborn is topics that involve children suffering any harm. I think the emotional parts of his brain light up and short circuit the logical parts.
I believe his point is that if you feel so strongly that someone should be helping the families that the Westies picket you should form a group of your own.
The Patriot Riders give their time and expenses to help the families of a group they belong to (Soldiers and Veterans). They have never claimed to want to do it all, and in fact have been quite clear that their mission is limited to those they consider a part of their “family”. Kudos to them for stepping up for what they believe in, and they have inspired others to do the same for the funerals that THEY have a connection to. Instead of complaining they don’t do it all some people have been lead by their example to do something themselves.
I don’t feel strongly that they should, and never said I did. I’m just not going to throw roses at a group who picks the easiest funerals to do it at.
I kind of looked back through his posts trying to answer my own question so I have seen quite a few posts that agree with you.
Well that smartly turns my data points into a line that hangs so heavy with irony that it must have started out as a parabola!
Thanks
That’s not the same, though. Ok, I know some folks like what Der has to say, but hate his style. I don’t get that, I dig his style, but whatever.
But it is different with DtC. His style is fine. The cool, arrogant, nonchelant response to spit flecked messageboard outrage is actually fun to watch. But something new has happened with him lately. He has started being wrong about so much shit. Word. When I was just a chubby cheeked baby at the SDMB, Dio made all my little ‘favorite doper lists’ (I don’t get down with such threads anymore, but I used to be all into them). Now, this dude is just making me wonder what in the world I used to see in him. He says the dumbest shit, all of a sudden. “A baby is never out to dinner in just a diaper. It doesn’t happen. Ever.” I mean, come on. That is just dumb on purpose.
So I decided that he got a bit big-headed being right so often, making so many posters ‘fave poster’ lists all the time. He felt the need to really push the envelope, stay edgy, as it were. Haha. Lots of posters are calling it sad, but it is actually kind of humorous if you look it at right. He is still a most entertaining poster.