There is really not that much evidence in the link Bayonet. Maybe enough to hold up a man made of straw. I was watching the news. It was early in the morning, and I don’t know about you but I never sit idly by in the morning and watch the news. I’m making breakfast, drinking coffee, and playing with the dog. If you want to nitpick, stories on news stations in the morning (when most people are in some sort of rush) are quick. Not long and dragged out. A man raping a child is something that tends to catch ones ear, but the story was not complete and my brief fabricant has been thoroughly explained by LaurAnge.
Appology accepted. Now would you like to tell our readers what you would have done in a similar situation as happened to me last night? Twist -> had it been a large man doing the same thing?
Sure, I don’t think smoking is child abuse, so I would’ve left it alone no matter the size or sex of the parent. On the other hand, seeing someone on oxygen smoking would’ve made me stay the hell away, again no matter the size or sex of the offender, I don’t like to be near explosions.
Cute how you sum up the actions of the woman in question as mere “smoking”. Why if I hadn’t read the OP I would think you’re just referring to a mother who is smoking in the same house as a kid.
Not say…a mother who was
shaking said baby
blowing smoke all over the baby’s face
causing enough irritation to cause visible red irritation of baby’s eyes
even when not blowing smoke in baby’s face, keeping lit cigarette near baby’s head (since the same hand that was holding the cig was also holding the baby)
I’m not sure I follow your line of thinking bayonet1976. You yell at Phlosphr for doing something specifically because he didn’t have the opportunity to prove to you that he would have done the same thing had it been another person. But let’s leave aside the fact that lack of proof does not, by default, make the statement false.
I’m going to take issue with your most recent post. Specifically this:
“seeing someone on oxygen smoking would’ve made me stay the hell away, again no matter the size or sex of the offender, I don’t like to be near explosions.”
But the baby was near it. You’d have let the baby be harmed because you didn’t wish to harm yourself in the process of helping another.
Fair enough.
But if this is the case, please explain to me how the scenario would be different than refusing to intervene on behalf of an abusive child because the person doing the abusing is bigger than you and thus could more easily hurt you. In both cases, a person makes a choice that self preservation is of greater import than helping a victim of abuse. Why is it you can state your safety is more important than the baby’s and yet turn around and fault Phlosphr for that exact same thing? A thing, by the way, which only happened in your imagination. Why is it you can fault him for what you would have done yourself?
