Goddammit Lady, if you watched your kid, she wouldn't get bitten.

The BBQ Pit
161

[QUOTE=madmonk28]
The lesson here is that no child ever does anything wrong and everyone in the world is responsible for the behavior of a child except that child’s parents.

Children can come on your property at will, do what they want and you can do nothing to stop it or in any way hold the parent or child responsible.
[/QUOTE]

Certainly seems like that’s the lesson that Go You Big Red Fire Engine has taken away. And desparately wants others to take away, as well.

Due, it seems, to the hardship and poverty level that comes with the added responsibilities of a mentally handicapped child.

And usage of lousy analogies.

Which no doubt has something to do with force feeding chiles to young children.

Or something.

Honestly, GYBRFE, I find it hard to accept that anyone can be as purposely dense as you seem in this thread. Are you simply trying to take on the Devil’s Advocate role? Or are you really this clueless?

162

I think it’s pretty clear to me that L.S. has done nothing wrong here, think about it, the child was on her property uninvited, walked sown the alley to the backyard fence and tormented the dogs.

The child can’t help being born the way she was, she has Downs, it’s a simple fact of life that her parents should know, understand, and compensate for, it’s their job to raise their child, not the neighbors…

It almost seems like some of the child-apologists here would have L.S. put her dogs in a isolated lucite box in order to protect the little tresspasser from herself, here’s a clue for the apologists, IT IS NOT LIGHT STRAND’S JOB to raise or protect this child, she has put more than adequate protections around her yard, it’s her house and her property, she, her family and her dogs have a right to enjoy their property without being hassled by the neighbors insistently inquisitive child.

If I had been in Light Strand’s situation and found the neighbor’s daughter uninvited in the house, I would not have been as charitable as they were, I would have marched her back across the street and told negligent “mommy” that her daughter was trespassing and IS NOT WELCOME in the house, DO NOT let it happen again, it’s NOT My job to keep an eye out for her kid…

then again, I’m antisocial, hate people, and am not a fan of kids anyway so i’m unfairly biased against them and freely admit it, I’m not the best judge here… YMMV

163

[QUOTE=kidchameleon]
Hmmm, so if I popped by Brisbane and stole all your stuff, you’d be okay with it Go You Big Red Fire Engine, because you never told me I couldn’t? Sweeeeet.

Now I’m thinking about getting a bunch of piranhas to weed out the less bright of the neighborhood kids who break into my house…
[/QUOTE]

You may disagree* with Big Red Username, that is not her argument. She’s not saying that you must pre-emptively tell people directly that something bothers you, she’s saying that once they have done it, you should confront them about it. If you had stolen things from her before but she only said “You stole that from me” and not “And I don’t want you to steal from me”, that might be a valid analogy. Some people think child-in-house is as self-evidently wrong as stealing, others don’t, that seems to be the divide.

*I find KIDS VS PETS arguments to be way too entertaining to state my own opinion without feeling like a troll.

164

[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
You may disagree* with Big Red Username, that is not her argument. She’s not saying that you must pre-emptively tell people directly that something bothers you, she’s saying that once they have done it, you should confront them about it.
[/QUOTE]
“I found your disabled child in my house. Again. Oh, by the way, that means you have no fucking idea where she is. And your shoes are untied. Plus that top so does not go with those bermuda shorts.” Do we really have to spell everything out for everybody?

165

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
“I found your disabled child in my house. Again. Oh, by the way, that means you have no fucking idea where she is. And your shoes are untied. Plus that top so does not go with those bermuda shorts.” Do we really have to spell everything out for everybody?
[/QUOTE]

Apparently we must, since you did not read my post if you think I’m here to argue on Red’s side. Pick on somebody else. I was just clarifying what her position actually is. AND EXPLICITLY STATING THAT I WAS STAYING OUT OF IT AS WELL AS WITHHOLDING MY OWN OPINION. There, that’s in case what we really need is to spell it out in all caps.

166

[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
Apparently we must, since you did not read my post if you think I’m here to argue on Red’s side. Pick on somebody else. I was just clarifying what her position actually is. AND EXPLICITLY STATING THAT I WAS STAYING OUT OF IT AS WELL AS WITHHOLDING MY OWN OPINION. There, that’s in case what we really need is to spell it out in all caps.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry for the confusion. You must have missed the part where she in fact did say that if a house were properly protected nothing would be stolen from it, strongly implying that it is the fault of the homeowners. You did miss that, right?

167

Sorry for the second post. While you are clarifying her position, how about clarifying what “thought-fed chilles” are. Curious Dopers want to know.

168

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Sorry for the confusion. You must have missed the part where she in fact did say that if a house were properly protected nothing would be stolen from it, strongly implying that it is the fault of the homeowners. You did miss that, right?
[/QUOTE]

Are you bored or something? Are you actually condemning me for stepping up to clarify a point so the discussion wouldn’t get sidetracked on an argument no one is making, because I failed, in doing so, to condemn the speaker in question for a completely unrelated point? Are you really doing that?

169

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Sorry for the second post. While you are clarifying her position, how about clarifying what “thought-fed chilles” are. Curious Dopers want to know.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, okay, sorry too then. I know you’re kidding, but I think Red just didn’t meant to include the words “had thought” in that sentence. What her analogy meant is beyond even my keen powers of clarification.

170

[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
Are you bored or something? Are you actually condemning me for stepping up to clarify a point so the discussion wouldn’t get sidetracked on an argument no one is making, because I failed, in doing so, to condemn the speaker in question for a completely unrelated point? Are you really doing that?
[/QUOTE]
I am not sure the point was unrelated. The question at hand is who is responsible for the bad behavior of others. Fire Engine sad that if her parents house were robbed it was their fault for having a robbable house, or words to that effect. When kidchameleon called her on that, you claimed it was a bad analogy. Since it was not an anaolgy at all, but a direct representation of her words, it seemed to me that you had completely missed the point.

171

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
I am not sure the point was unrelated. The question at hand is who is responsible for the bad behavior of others. Fire Engine sad that if her parents house were robbed it was their fault for having a robbable house, or words to that effect. When kidchameleon called her on that, you claimed it was a bad analogy. Since it was not an anaolgy at all, but a direct representation of her words, it seemed to me that you had completely missed the point.
[/QUOTE]

…kidchameleon “called” her on thinking that because she hadn’t told him he couldn’t rob her, he could do so with impunity. Here is what he said:

So…uh…are you drinking? :wink:

172

Some good points CanvasShoes, I did make some poor analogies (Analogies aren’t the kind of thing I spend my days pondering). GLWasteful, someone has to play the role of Devil’s Advocate.
Ensign Edison seems to be clarifying quite well the points I didn’t get across too well.
However, Contrapuntal(who apparently chooses which posts of mine they want to read, and which ones they ignore), kidchameleon and Hamadryad seem to like putting words into my mouth. When I responded to Hama’s post I was picking on her use of the word “adequate”, not saying that it is the fault of the homeowners.

Like I have already said, this mother is stupid, but the problem might never have happened had light strand resolved the conflict.

Now, I wonder if ight strand has actually bothered to tell the mother the words in the OP, or has she just not taken assertive action and continued to bitch about it on the internet.

173

[QUOTE=Go You Big Red Fire Engine]
Now, I wonder if ight strand has actually bothered to tell the mother the words in the OP, or has she just not taken assertive action and continued to bitch about it on the internet.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder why it bothers you so much. Isn’t the point of the Pit to bitch about stuff?

174

[QUOTE=Rhiannon8404]
I wonder why it bothers you so much. Isn’t the point of the Pit to bitch about stuff?
[/QUOTE]

If you already know that, why are you wondering? :stuck_out_tongue:

There’s no “only the bitch who initiated the bitching may bitch” rule. Red’s bitching about the bitching, and now you’re bitching about the bitching about the bitching. If I were actually complaining, this might turn into a bitchularity and a black hole would form around the thread. Luckily, I’m just being a smartass.

175

[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
and now you’re bitching about the bitching about the bitching.
[/QUOTE]

Nah, I’m not bitching…I’m merely curious. :wink:

176

[QUOTE=Go You Big Red Fire Engine]
kidchameleon and Hamadryad seem to like putting words into my mouth. When I responded to Hama’s post I was picking on her use of the word “adequate”, not saying that it is the fault of the homeowners.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but you’ve also stated the light strand needs to tell her neighbor that its not acceptable for her daughter to break the law (entering her house). I was pointing out the rediculousness of that attitude, defering to the law should be first, then civility. Part of being a parent is dealing with whatever issues your child may have and if one is incapable they should seek to place their child somewhere that they can get the supervision and care they need.

177

[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
So…uh…are you drinking? :wink:
[/QUOTE]

Go You Big Red Fire Engine’s beer! :stuck_out_tongue:

178

[QUOTE=Go You Big Red Fire Engine]
Some good points CanvasShoes,
Like I have already said, this mother is stupid, but the problem might never have happened had light strand resolved the conflict.

Now, I wonder if ight strand has actually bothered to tell the mother the words in the OP, or has she just not taken assertive action and continued to bitch about it on the internet.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure. I tend to consider people, especially dopers, innocent until proven guilty. Personally, I believe her. Particularly since morons like the neighbor woman seem to make up WAY too large a percentage of our population.

You’re missing that most of us have agreed that Legally LS must fix the problem with the “attractive nusance” that her dogs present. Even LS has agreed with that point.

And I’ll be dollars to donuts that LS will fix the problem with the child wandering into her house. Peronally? I think she’s been a saint. I would have called the cops and CPS immediately. “Hello? there’s a strange child in my home, and I can’t get her to leave, no parents are anywhere in sight”.

Again, the parent is beyond idiotic to not get that laws, customs and social mores are different here. Ignrance of the law is no excuse. Morally and ethically, the incident with LS’s dogs is her fault for not watching the child. Just as any other incident involving not watching the child is the parents fault.

If a child, particularly a developmentally challenged one, is left alone to wander about in dangerous circumstances and something happens, it is the parent’s fault for not providing adequate supervision. PERIOD.

Several parents have spoken up here regarding not even letting their normal children wander alone in their neighborhoods. Yes, some of us were allowed to do so when we were children. But I’d bet most of us who remember that are my age (47) or so. Things were (sadly) different then.

Your argument for this woman seems to be “well, maybe things were different in her culture and she doesn’t know any better”. This may very well be the case. That doesn’t make it less dumb, unobservant, inconsiderate and idiotic. Nor does it decrease her responsibility.

She is NOT parenting correctly. That needs to change, that she may not “know better” just means that she needs to LEARN better.

I fail to see how that is, in even the remotest way LS’s responsibility.

179

GAH!
Nuisance

I could have sworn that darned I was there when I previewed.

I’m sure there are more, I’m posting w/out my reading glasses again (denial, I hate getting old).

:smiley:

180

[QUOTE=Go You Big Red Fire Engine]
GLWasteful, someone has to play the role of Devil’s Advocate.
[/quote]

I fail to see why it’s at all necessary in this instance. A mother who allows her mentally handicapped child to roam the neighborhood is a piss poor excuse for a mother. That this child has entered at least one home in this neighborhood and was forcibly carried out, screaming, says to me that the mother (hell, the entire family) continues to do a less-than-stellar job of raising this child.

She was bitten, and that’s a terrible thing. But if she hadn’t walked to the back of light strand’s home and reached through the fence, that would never have happened. As I said, my own daughter thinks that animals exist for hugging. And she has reached fourteen years of age without being bitten due to either her mother or I making damned certain that she has precious few opportunities to walk up to strange dogs and hug them.

So what, precisely, are you advocating? That this mother acted correctly? That her daughter had the right to trespass? That light strand should do more to keep people out of her yard than the security fence that has already been installed? You’re fighting a current not just of the opinion of most people in this thread, but common sense.

Waste