If it’s unprovable (it being the chain I posted wherein an assy bacteria makes someone sick), then how do you know it’s true?
Fuck, you’re no different than someone who thinks you can get AIDS from a toilet seat. Them: “When people who have AIDS sit on a toilet seat, they might sweat, transmitting the AIDS to the seat. Ergo, when I sit on the seat, I might get AIDS.” You: “Diapers could potentially contain shit at any minute, shit contains germs, ergo, putting a diapered baby on a table puts the ENTIRE WORLD at risk.” And when someone calls either them or you on the dozens of relevant hurdles occluded by that “ergo,” you can only respond, “Bah, that’s unprovable” (and yet somehow obvious at the same time).
And I’m the retard?
P.S. Children sitting on tables leading to sickness is not at all unprovable, moron, just because you can’t prove it because you’re dumb (the fact that it’s not true doesn’t help your cause, I guess). You posted a link to Jack in the Box making people sick through selling E. coli tainted meat. That’s pretty strong proof for hamburgers, in your parlance, “putting the ENTIRE WORLD at risk” through their germs. Post something similar where the vector is “baby sitting on the table” and you’ve given some strong proof. But you don’t have that, do you? I wonder why…
You know someone who craps thru their hands?? Hell, log off and go call the media!
Because that isn’t what you said - you should try paying attention to what you post at the very least.
Well, WRT wiping noses and keeping track of discussions - yes.
This is an example of your not being able to follow a discussion. The Jack in the Box link was to cite that e coli is dangerous when you said it generally isn’t. That was cooked e coli that killed those kids, not fresh from the source e coli. As for posting a cite, fercrissakes, that proves that a baby with a used diaper could contaminate a table - some things are so bleeding obvious that they don’t need cites. Shall I find you a cite for the sky is up?
Nah. I’m on dial up so I just don’t have the interest to spend that kind of time. Since you’ve proven several times that you can’t seem to follow what’s being said, it probably wouldn’t do any good anyway. If you care enough, I gave you enough detals to find it.
(Cue quixotic78 claiming it must not exist simply because I wouldn’t take the time to do his work…in three, two…)
You clearly missed the multiple posts earlier giving some evidence (kinda weak, but more than you’ve given) that hands have more germs than asses, despite the “fact” that you know asses are germier.
You’ve lost me. What I said was there is a long chain of events in between ass on table and people getting sick. I posted some crucial points in that chain that you must address (more later). In return, you said that you’re asking me to prove an unprovable. To which I respond – if it’s unprovable, how do you know it’s true?
So? How do you know that asses on table can make a person sick if you can’t even conceive of some sort of proof of that “fact”?
E. coli still isn’t generally dangerous. I took that italicized qualifier from your own cite, and it’s still valid, because it doesn’t mean “never ever ever.”
Well not quite, it was undercooked meat that did the damage. And how on Earth are you positing that a baby’s ass was the source of the bacteria in the undercooked hamburgers?
“Diapered asses on tables leading to sickness” is not one of the things that is so bleeding obvious, despite your insistence. See, if you really wanted to, you could find a reputable cite for the sky being up. But you simply cannot find a reputable cite for diapers on tables leading to sickness in a person. One more time, here are at least some of the points that you must address for this “bleeding obvious” assertion you’ve posited:
[ol]
[li]How many people sitting at restaurant tables have babies?[/li][li]How many of these people put their babies on tables?[/li][li]How many of these babies have shit in their diapers?[/li][li]How many of these shits leak onto the table?[/li][li]How many of these leaked shits contain illness-causing bacteria?[/li][li]How many of these illness-causing bacteria can survive outside of the moist, warm, dark diaper?[/li][li]How many of these survivors aren’t killed by residual bleach on the table/in the tablecloth?[/li][li]How many of these hearty survivors jump to your hand or utensils?[/li][li]How many of these jumpers can penetrate your skin or survive the human mouth?[/li][li]How many of these inside your body aren’t killed by your immune system?[/li][/ol]
Suppose – just for the sake of argument; I’m not saying this is anything like a real likelihood – that each of these steps has a 20% chance of occurring. That means you have a (0.2)[sup]10[/sup] – about 0.00001% – chance of getting sick from a baby’s assgerms by going out to a restaurant. And that’s your “bleeding obvious” fact.
I’m not claiming it doesn’t exist; I’m just claiming that I didn’t see it on my original readthrough, nor did I find it on my second readthrough where I was explicitly looking for it. I suspect you and I have different interpretations of when you said that you “essentially” asked me just what I said you didn’t ask me.
And dialup or not, you found a cite linking E. coli in hamburger to sickness in people. All I’m asking is for you to fire up your detective skills again to find a cite linking a baby sitting on a table in a restaurant to sickness. If it’s so “bleeding obvious,” it shouldn’t take but a couple of minutes, even on dialup. Hell, even that paltry 0.00001% likelihood above should have happened thousands of times just in this very country. So link to one of those thousands of instances and I’ll shut up.
Yes, I’m sure there is a possibility of this (although since you can’t find any evidence of it, until you do, we can assume it’s fairly remote). What we have given you is several examples of things MORE likely to be contaminating your food surface, none of which have anything to do with babies.
OK, we get it - you hate babies, and the people that have them. Cool. There is nothing wrong with admitting that in the main it’s not the germs you are worried about. It’s that this puts you off eating, simply because of the mental image of a pooey nappy.
Great. We all get that, and apart from when some of us really need to (when 2 hands aren’t enough and there is no high chair - not uncommon) we respect that, and generally don’t put our babies on the table.
In those very few cases when our need to deal with a baby (to keep them quiet, or stop making a mess - which can benefit you too, you know) trumps your desire not to be grossed out - it will be for a very short time, and we will not make a habit of it. I note that you’ve not actually posted yet in this thread about how this happens all the time around you, so to be fair, it seems like we parents are in the most keeping our end of the deal.
Don’t make this bigger than it needs to be. You don’t like it. We’ll try not to do it.
And you clearly missed when I said that I am not all that concerned with germs like colds or flu. None of the folks claiming that hands are germier than butts were able to come back with a cite that shows that hands have more feces specific germs than butts, and feces specific germs tend to be more dangerous than the average cold or flu.
Actually, there isn’t anything I must do, and that includes getting involved in your red herrings. Unless you are completely stupid, you have to know that there is no way to prove that every time A (diaper on table) happens, then B (e coli or some such germ ends up on table) must happen, because it doesn’t happen every time. Hell, you could go shit on the table yourself and unless you happen to be carrying some of those germs and/or they happen to be, uh, expressed right then and/or whoever cleaned the table didn’t do a good job, it is entirely possible that there wouldn’t be any more danger from you shitting on the table than from touching it with your hand. So again, unless you are completely stupid, it was a red herring for you to insist that I prove that any random diaper on a table must result in dangerous germs being left on the table. That is what is unprovable. And that doesn’t even touch on location.
It is far more frequently dangerous than the common cold. It also isn’t the only thing transmitted thru feces, it just happens to be the one you focused on for some reason.
Undercooked is still far more cooked than fresh from the source.
My god, are you really that dumb? I’ve already explained why I posted that cite and it had zero to do with a baby’s ass.
Yeah? Why don’t you go ahead and post one?
Nope, I don’t gotta do nuthin’. Even if you don’t want to believe all of the science that lead to laws that require workers to wash their hands after using the toilet, which is far less likely to transmit disease than a leaky diaper, there is still the fact that any ass on a table tends to disgust fellow diners. Which of course you don’t care about, being an entitled asshole parent.
BTW, if you weren’t so dead set on justifying your bad behavior, you would be able to find answers to the questions you listed that actually deal in facts, rather than herrings.
At this point, I don’t even remember what it is you can’t find.
I did not at any time say I couldn’t find evidence of it.
Once again - shall we set it to music? - I am not particularly concerned with catching a cold. E coli, hepatitis? Yeah, that would be seriously a problem.
The only place you got that from was from people who have made up interesting stories about me and call them facts. It is true that I don’t like it when asshole parents inflict their noisy smelly germy offspring on the rest of the world and expect us to put up with them, but OTOH I have little trouble with the increasingly rare actual parent and their well cared for, well behaved children.
Ah, another retard who cannot do X without sitting their baby on a table. It’s amazing that a teenager was able to do this, yet you (supposed) adults cannot. Lets try this - if there is a table, there is a chair or a booth - use them. That is where asses belong.
Wait a minute. You are actually trying to justify sitting a baby on a table to keep it quiet or to get it (somehow?) to stop making a mess? How does that work?
Shrug. It runs in cycles - I suppose it depends on where I happen to be, or what time of year it is. I do note it is far more common in areas where the average income is higher than the poorer area of my city, but then that is probably more cultural than income.
I don’t believe you. Anyone that spends time justifying it is doing it a lot more than would ever be needed
In my opinion, people’s asses (clothed, dirty, sanitized or whatever) do not belong on public tables. And I am a parent that knows for a fact that my child shits lavender-smelling rainbows.
Hey, lay off the insults. I’ve never interacted with you before (although I have read many threads in which you have posted), and I’ve been nothing but polite to you - why can’t you give me the same respect in return?
And note - I previously mentioned that I have never put my baby on the table, and have no plans to (see post #545). But I can sympathize with those parents that say it’s hard - there are things that are hard about being a parent that I could not have predicted before I had my daughter.
And (to join in the refrain) I’ve given you cites of non-baby vectors of fecal matter (not the simple cold virus) which would put you at risk of contracting something more serious. You haven’t as yet given me a cite for the fully nappied, fully clothed baby causing illness.
None of these sentence have any citations from you (and I suspect most of them are either not true or only partly true at best)
…
Of course not. Just like there isn’t anything I must do, which includes keeping my baby off of the table. Glad we agree on something!
Quote it. Quote where I said that it “must happen” “every time.” You can’t, of course, because I was very specific about talking about risks, percentages, and likelihood.
This is exactly my point. YOU are the one saying baby ass on table puts you at risk, and I am the one saying the risk is negligible, due to a chain of events in between diaper on table and sickness. A chain of events you can only address as a “herring.”
Fortunately, I never ever used the word “must,” as you well know – your weasling is wholly transparent. I tell you what – and of course you needn’t do this, but I’d certainly make you look far less stupid – come up with one cite. One citation where it says that someone got sick from a baby sitting on the table. Forget about the chain of events (which you are deliberately avoiding anyways). Just one cite from a newspaper or a scientific/medical journal or something along those lines. “Local resident got sick from a baby sitting on a table.” Just like you did with E. coli and Jack in the Box. Same thing.
But of course, if a teenager can do it, then adults should be able to, right? Except, apparently, this particular teenager never took the babies she “raised” out in public for more than a few minutes at a time. Either that, or she let them stew in their own nasty juices until she got them home again. Given what she claims about the way she grew up herself (not going to restaurants, or even the grocery store), I’d bet it was the former, since I can’t really believe she would do the latter.
So, once again we’re being told what parents should, must, and can do, based on some either non-existent or completely ‘unique-to-her’ experience. Complete with the usual run-around and back-pedaling.
Oh, well.
How 'bout this? I promise I won’t sit on any table you plan to eat on and we’ll call it even?
Multiple attempts to put words in my mouth doesn’t indicate respect on my planet.
Then why did you say “our” and “we”?
I don’t know how many of those things there could be by now. People have been raising babies for how many generations and it was a surprise to you that it wasn’t going to be a walk in the park?
Which had nothing to do with the subject, and also tended to involve things that must be on or near a table in order for anyone to be able to eat from it. Which I have already said.
I could pick out things from your posts that you haven’t cited either. Will that be of any use? Rather doubt it.
The difference is, I haven’t been telling you that you must do anything, since I don’t think I’ve ever told anyone that they must do something.
You know damn well what you said and how it would be interpreted. Your attempts to try to “prove” whatever point you have are pathetic.
No, it wasn’t.
A chain of events that could be better described as a moving goal post.
Wow. You not only used it, you underlined it.
Don’t be an idiot - you cannot be so dumb that you can’t see it isn’t the same thing. The whole point of this is that when a diaper has been in contact with a table, unless I happened to have seen it, I won’t know it happened. It’s not like germs can be seen by the naked eye, so if that diaper left something on the table, I wouldn’t know it. They caught the Jack in the Box thing because it was happening in a small area and so started testing, but unfortunately there are inconsiderate parents everywhere. If I were to come down with hepatitis, I’d have no idea where the contamination was since the germs don’t turn the table green on contact.
Interesting assumptions. Yes, I grew up during a time when one didn’t drag young babies all over kingdom come, but that certainly doesn’t mean that I never took diapered children out into public. It was just later on, when they were more or less regular and could be counted on to keep a clean diaper for at least an hour. OTOH maybe I just got lucky, because it was still a time frame when one didn’t drag even toddlers all over kingdom come.
Not that this has anything at all to do with the subject.
It’s nothing but special requests from you people. No babies on tables. No short pants. No eye contact. And now no fucking. What a privileged world you demand. You must have really taken that Burger King commercial from the 70’s to heart.
Please, just get yourself a Pope mobile and a human sized habitrail explorer ball and spare the rest of us your drama, your holiness.
